University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conservation practices in India -- a case study of Jaisalmer Fort

(USC Thesis Other)

Conservation practices in India -- a case study of Jaisalmer Fort

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN INDIA – A CASE STUDY OF JAISALMER FORT

By

NEHA JAIN

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Neha Jain
ii

To my ancestral home…
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my entire thesis committee for
guiding and supporting me through the process of this study. My thesis chair, Trudi
Sandmeier has been the very supportive throughout the research. Her logical way of
thinking and expertise in wide range of conservation topics have been of great value to
me. She has been invariably calm and helped me think through ways to overcome
numerous hurdles. I really admire her enthusiasm and her ability to explain things clearly
and simply which highly contributed to the success of this thesis.
I would like to express my very great appreciation to Navin Piplani, INTACH
without whom this work could not have been completed. I am proud to record that I had
the opportunity to work with such an exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced
person like him. He served on my thesis with true passion and sincerity and imparted me
with his knowledge. This helped me understand the ins and outs of conservation practices
in India and variables behind them which was utterly important considering my
background in architecture.
I am particularly grateful for the assistance given by Mark Weber who is the Field
Projects Director for the World Monuments Fund. He helped me figure out the best
possible case study for this thesis, providing me with all the possible documentation for
the same. He assisted me for most of the research and explained the ways used for
iv

implementation of the project. He very graciously allowed me access to reports that are
not easily available. Thank you Mark.
I am thankful to John A. Fidler, President and Chief Technical Officer with John
Fidler Preservation Technology Inc. John has constantly supported me, helped me work
through the initial confusion of selecting a topic. His enormous experience with
international conservation practices helped me see the possible conservation issues in
India. Without his help, it would not have been possible to find a research topic that
addresses the practical issues related to current conservation practices in India.
I would also like to thank Bombay Collaborative (Sudhir Deshpande, Rahul
Mehrotra, and Navin Piplani) for contributing images to this research. The images
provided by them are an explicit documentation of the Jaisalmer fort conservation
project. Without these images, the research would not have been this successful.
I am thankful to my parents for their unending support. I struggled a lot through this
research, without their support, it was not possible to complete it. Thanks to my dear
friends Pramith Badeka, Laura J MacDonald, and Brandy Lusvardi for being there for me
and listening to my nonsense. Special thanks to Laura for giving me company during
endless hours in the studio.
Most special thanks to both my brothers. Without them, I could have never
achieved any of this.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... ix

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... x

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... xi

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
History of India ........................................................................................................................
Conservation in India ...............................................................................................................
Case Study ................................................................................................................................

CHAPTER - 1: JAISALMER: The Golden City ........................................................................... 12
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
History ......................................................................................................................................
Architecture: Plan, Fort Wall and Building Types ...................................................................
Natural Threats .........................................................................................................................
Human Threats .........................................................................................................................

CHAPTER - 2: ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI): The Fort Wall ...................... 34
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
History ......................................................................................................................................
Current Administration ............................................................................................................
Legal framework for ASI: AMASR .........................................................................................
Economic Aspects ....................................................................................................................
The Project ...............................................................................................................................
Technical Details ......................................................................................................................
Sociocultural Aspects ...............................................................................................................
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................

CHAPTER - 3: INDIAN NATIONAL TRUST for ARTS & CULTURAL HERITAGE
(INTACH): The Streetscape Project .............................................................................................. 63
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
vi

History ......................................................................................................................................
Guidelines: Charter for Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites ..............
Economic Aspects ....................................................................................................................
The Project ..............................................................................................................................
Technical Details ......................................................................................................................
Sociocultural Aspects ...............................................................................................................
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................

CHAPTER - 4: A COMPARISION OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN INDIA: ASI and
INTACH ........................................................................................................................................ 88
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
Philosophy ................................................................................................................................
Projects .....................................................................................................................................
Technical Details ......................................................................................................................
Financial Details ......................................................................................................................
Sociocultural Aspects ...............................................................................................................
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 112

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 119

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I.1: Map of ancient India ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure I.2: Map of India, Maurya Kingdom .................................................................................... 5
Figure I.3: The market street in Hampi ............................................................................................ 8
Figure I.4: View of Jaisalmer fort from lower town ........................................................................ 9
Figure 1.1: Map of Jaisalmer Town ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 1.2: Google Earth veiw of the Jaisalmer Fort ..................................................................... 15
Figure 1.3: Suraj pol, entrance gate to the fort .............................................................................. 18
Figure 1.4: Land use plan of Jaisalmer fort ................................................................................... 21
Figure 1.5: The fort wall ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 1.6: Development of the fort wall ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 1.7: Housing clusters inside the fort ................................................................................... 26
Figure 1.8: Soil erosion on the northern slope ............................................................................... 28
Figure 1.9: View of Ghutnali, darin on the slope ........................................................................... 30
Figure 1.10: View of Collapsed inner fort wall ............................................................................. 31
Figure 1.11: Repair work done in cement mortar .......................................................................... 32
Figure 2.1: Various elements of the fort wall ................................................................................ 50
Figure 2.2: Soil erosion on the northern slope ............................................................................... 52
Figure 2.3: Debris lying in the mori ............................................................................................... 53
Figure 2.4: Worn out original stone paving in mori ...................................................................... 54
Figure 2.5: Ghutnali, original drain on the slope clogged with garbage and plants ...................... 56
viii

Figure 2.6: Southwest section of the fort wall repaired by ASI ..................................................... 58
Figure 2.7: Pitching under construction ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 3.1: Water on street inside the fort ..................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.2: Street in front of Hawa pol ......................................................................................... 80
Figure 3.3: View of street showing exposed sewage and plumbing .............................................. 82
Figure 3.4: New sewage installed as part of streetscape project .................................................... 82
Figure 3.5: View of street conserved in third phase of streetscape project .................................... 84
Figure 3.6: View of street conserved in third phase of streetscape project .................................... 85
Figure 3.7: Before and after views of streetscape project .............................................................. 86
Figure 4.1: Construction work by ASI, Pitching ......................................................................... 104
Figure 4.2: Construction work by ASI, toe wall .......................................................................... 104
Figure 4.3: Temple in Halebeed ................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4.4: Recently built Jain temple, Amar Sagar, Jaisalmer ................................................... 109

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Chronological History of India ............................................................................. 3

x

ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines the practical issues involved in conservation of architectural
heritage in India. To explore the role of ASI and INTACH, this dissertation analyzes their
mandates/legal frameworks, which defines the scope of work for respective agencies. The
Jaisalmer Fort conservation project is examined to research the practical, social, and legal
issues involved in the practice. The work done by both agencies is analyzed. ASI and
INTACH are both facing issues in enforcement and hence trying to update their
administrative system. Both these agencies are major entities in their respective fields
(government and non-government) working nationwide to conserve heritage resources.
This dissertation attempts to find out where does conservation practice presently stand
and what future opportunities are possible with recent major changes in their working
methodology.

xi

PREFACE

Born and brought up in a historic town, I spent my childhood playing on streets lined
with mud and wood houses. Eventually, all those houses were rebuilt using cement and
brick, with ugly colors for exteriors. My love for architecture encouraged me to pursue
this research about what is happening in home country in the field of conservation. I have
heard about ASI at few events and was intrigued to know how it works.

The most interesting part of this research was talking to so many professionals working in
India. There are various agencies working in this field, local, national, governmental,
non-governmental and individuals. They all have different opinion about what is
happening and more importantly how it is happening.

Reading and talking about all these issues, I wanted to compare government and non-
government agencies. They both have different set of rules and both protect different
properties. Hence, the case study was chosen as a project, which not only involves both
the agencies but also requires them to interact.

1

INTRODUCTION

2

This research aims to find out through case study analysis of projects at the Jaisalmer
fort, the strengths and weaknesses of ASI and INTACH. The Constitution of India invests
legal authority with ASI, how much of it can really be exercised? Corrupt leaders and
citizens sabotage the legal system in India. The system is not transparent and hence
having the power to protect does not mean same as the ability to protect resources. The
research aims to find how efficient these agencies are in their efforts to save monuments.

History of India
The country of India is more than 5000 years old. It has one of the richest histories in
world and hence most amazing group of ancient monuments. Several dynasties ruled
over Southeast Asian subcontinent, even more invaded the land (table I.1). Most of the
invaders settled here and brought with them a new culture. Few of them lasted more than
a century. The region consisted of sixteen fully developed states known as “solah
mahajnapada” from sixth century to fifth century B.C. (figure I.1).
1
These states extended
to Kabul valley in north-west to Godavari River in south and Himalayas on northeast.
2

Then Maurya dynasty ruled over the country from third to first century B.C. (figure I.2).
3

The emperors from this dynasty who did most in architecture are, Chandragupta Maurya
and Asoka.
4
The Gupta dynasty, which came after Maurya, also has a major contribution

1
L.P. Sharma, Bharat ka Itihas: Prarambh se 1526 A.D., (Agra: Laxmi Narayan Agrawal pustak
Prakashak, 2004), 118.
2
Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, and Kalikinkar Datta, An advanced History of
India 3
rd
ed., (London: Madras: Macmillan, 1994). Volume 1, 47.
3
Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, and Kalikinkar Datta, An advanced History of
India 3
rd
ed., (London: Madras: Macmillan, 1994). Volume 1, 91.
4
L.P. Sharma, Bharat ka Itihas: Prarambh se 1526 A.D., (Agra: Laxmi Narayan Agrawal pustak
Prakashak, 2004),138.
3

in architectural heritage of the country.
5
From seventh to twelfth century, various Rajput
clans ruled the northern region and this period is the Rajput era in Indian history.
6
During
this time, there were numerous Islamic invasions. Towards the end of the era, Rajput
Bhati Rajput clan in the far western territories established Jaisalmer fort.
6
th
century B.C. – 5
th
century B.C. Solah Mahajanpada (16 states)
4
th
century B.C. – 1
st
century B.C. Maurya Dynasty
4
th
century A.D. – 6
th
century A.D. Gupta Dynasty
7
th
century A.D. – 12
th
century A.D. Rajput era
12
th
century A.D.- 15
th
century A.D. Islamic Dynasty
15
th
century A.D. – 19
th
century A.D. Mughal Dynasty
19
th
century A.D. – mid 20
th
century A.D. British colonial rule
Form 1947 – present (66 years) Independent country
Table I.1: Chronological history of India
No matter who ruled the country/region, everyone contributed to its development in
terms of architecture and city planning, although the Mughal dynasty did major
construction work on a national scale. In nineteenth century Mughal Empire was
declining, British forces took the territory and converted it into an English colony.

5
L.P. Sharma, Bharat ka Itihas: Prarambh se 1526 A.D. (Agra: Laxmi Narayan Agrawal pustak
Prakashak, 2004), 209.
6
Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, and Kalikinkar Datta, An advanced History of
India 3
rd
ed., (Madras: London: Macmillan, 1994). Volume 1, 154-161.
4

Figure I.1: Map of ancient India showing 16 mahajanpada. Image from www.mapsofindia.com.

5

Figure I.2: Map of subcontinent showing the extents of Maurya Kingdom. Image from
www.mapsofindia.com.

6

Conservation in India
The first effort to conserve the historical resources of the Southeast Asian subcontinent
was by British officers. Before the colonial era, every king was interested in construction
rather than conservation. The new ruler would bring down existing public structures to
erect another one, to commemorate his victory over the land. The most important
architectural contribution by the British was civic structures such as city halls and towers.

The British had the greatest impact on the built environment of India as it relates to the
conservation of existing resources and discovering the unknown (figure I.3). During the
colonial period, there were several regional and national agencies involved in
archeological explorations and conservation. These agencies carried out important
research relating to the chronological history of India. Many gaps in the historical record
were filled and new discoveries made. The British established the foundation for western
conservation practices in India, which continue to the present day.

Given the long and rich history of India, the number of monuments in need of
conservation exceeds the resources available. Even today, there are new temples and
other structures constructed in the same traditional regional styles and techniques.

At present, many agencies work toward saving the myriad number of monuments and
settlements in India. Government organizations, non-government organizations, regional
7

and local groups work with whatever resources they have and can save. A few
organizations working at national level are:
 Archeological Survey of India (ASI)
 Department of Archeology
 State Departments of Archeology (SDA)
 National Monuments Authority (NMA)
 Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO) [trains people
in traditional practices for housing]
 Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage (INTACH)
 National Culture Fund (NCF)

Two major agencies working at the national level are ASI and INTACH. With offices
(circles/chapters) at the regional level, they do projects, which vary widely. Each
collaborates with various agencies, sometimes with one another, to carry out large-scale
projects. ASI is a government agency and there are various layers of administration.
INTACH has the skills and ability to do good work, but it has limited legal authority.

The biggest drawback for ASI is that it works with properties, which have fallen out of
use. Most of these properties are museums, tourist destinations or ruins who no one visits.
INTACH works toward protecting resources, which are not under ASI. There is no legal
protection to these properties and hereafter-referred to as ‘unprotected’ resources. Many
of them are privately owned and their future is hands of the owner.

8

Figure I.3: The market street in Hampi, a site discovered in British expeditions. Photo by author.
9

Case Study
For the purpose of this research, conservation of the Jaisalmer fort is examined as a case
study. It is one of the last living forts in the world. The people still live inside the fort.
The royal family, which once ruled over the fort, still lives in Jaisalmer (outside the fort)
although they still own all the royal palaces inside the fort walls. The sheer size of the
fort requires the efforts of more than one agency. Although there are numerous agencies
working at the fort, more organized efforts are needed to keep the fort from falling apart.
7

Of particular note is the fort wall, which is in poor condition, and in danger of collapse
due to the impact of humans and natural agents (figure I.4).

Figure I.4: View of Jaisalmer fort from lower town. Photo by author.

7
The various agencies working in Jaisalmer are; ASI, World Monuments Fund, INTACH, HUDCO,
Jaisalmer in Jeopardy, Girdhar Smarak Trust, Jaisalmer Heritage Trust, Jaisalmer municipality, and
Jaisalmer Collectorate.
10

Apart from all the issues, there are many success stories. What is it that people still
believe in? There are things and issues, which still protect some of the resources apart
from these legal and political systems. This research also explores which agency is most
successful. Do people believe in government jobs or the work carried out by non-
government agencies?

Among all these efforts, another perspective is of the citizens or the local residents. What
does a local /common man think about the heritage? There is division between common
people, educated and illiterate. People who are educated, often live in metro cities and
have access to all amenities of a modern life. They look at the resources as a memory of
past. However, the residents who live very close or sometimes even inside the significant
properties do not always love it. They want modern amenities and comfort. These people,
even if educated, would not want to save the resources if it stands between them and
better living standards. It is a part of this research to find how much emphasis is laid on
educating local people about their shared heritage.

Another challenge is of property ownership. The person who owns the property may or
may not understand its significance. The financial drive is much more important. There is
no protection to most of the privately owned properties, and hence they can be
demolished or saved, as the owner wishes.

11

On a personal note, the house owned by my family for three centuries was recently torn
down. No one had lived there for more than five decades. It was falling apart, people
were using it illegally, and there was a temporary shop set up on the porch of the house.
The family had moved out of that village and now there was no one to take care of it.
Most importantly, there was no motive to take care of that house, other than it being an
ancestral house. This is not the only case where an important part of history is lost. ASI
protects significant pieces of history, but it does not protect vernacular architecture in any
way. There are no governmental efforts to save these old traditional neighborhoods.
Common life is also important to save as a memory of our past.

In all, this research is a quest to find where current conservation practices stand in India.
How much does the government support the cause? How well do the people accept this
cause?

12

CHAPTER - 1: JAISALMER
THE GOLDEN CITY

13

Introduction
Jaisalmer, also known as the golden city, is located in the district of Jaisalmer in the state
of Rajasthan. It is situated on the India-Pakistan border and is world famous for its fort.
The fort originally stood in the middle of the Thar Desert surrounded by sand dunes. The
Jaisalmer fort is approximately two square mile in area and at an elevation of 751 feet
above sea level. Now there are developments other than the fort (Figure 1.1). The city of
Jaisalmer has grown over time as a tourist destination, although it is still a relatively
small town with a total population of approximately 60,000 people (in 2001 census).
8

Four hundred families live inside the fort, which once had over 480 structures. It is one of
the few living forts in the world and the last one in India.

Figure 1.1: Map of Jaisalmer Town, showing the fort, the walled city and the surrounding area. Image by
Bombay Collaborative.

8
“The census of India,” government of India, accessed July 28, 2012, http://www.censusindia.net/results.
14

Jaisalmer is known for its architectural heritage, lakes, sand dunes, desert festival,
migratory birds and much more. Due to its location near the border, the district is also a
military base for the Indian army. The state of Rajasthan is known for its Rajput
architecture and Jaisalmer has examples of this architectural heritage. Due to its isolation,
the fort architecture reflects very little Mughal or European influence, although some
Islamic features and carvings can be seen.

History
Jaisalmer was a Rajput kingdom, under Bhati Rajput.
9
They ruled from eleventh century
until the mid-twentieth century when India became an independent nation and all princely
states were dissolved.
10
The known boundaries of this kingdom varied largely with time.

The original Bhati capital was at Ludhvara. Rawal (king in regional language) Jaisal
abandoned Ludvara in the mid-twelfth century, after a battle destroyed the city. Cities in
the open desert were vulnerable to enemies so he built his new fort atop a triangular hill
close to a lake, approximately ten miles from Ludhvara. He named the fort after himself
(Jaisalmer). Jaisalmer fort was first built of mud in A.D. 1156.
11

9
Bhati is a Rajput clan which ruled western part of the Rajput state. There were various other clans who
ruled over smaller kingdoms which together formed a Rajput state.
10
Anthony Gordon O’Brien, The Ancient Chronology of Thar: the Bháátika, Laukika and Sindh eras
(Oxford University Press, Delhi; New York, 1996), 50.
11
Antonio Martinelli, and George Michell, Princely Rajasthan: Rajput palaces and mansions (Vendome
Press, New York, 2004), 238.
15

The triangular hill (locally called trikuta) on which the fort stands is 250 feet high and
1500 feet at its widest point (Figure 1.2). This fort was built for protection from invaders,
to withstand a siege. It truly was impregnable. This fort also served as a trading post on
the east-west trading route. It was an entry point for caravans coming from western
Muslim kingdoms into the eastern Hindu (later Mughal) empire. Trade flourished and
city (fort and the walled city) grew as a major trading post. Jaisalmer Fort was an abode
for merchants and Jain monks. Most of the merchants were Jains, hence Jainism
flourished inside the fort.

Figure 1.2: A Google earth view of the Jaisalmer Fort. Image by Bombay Collaborative.

16

Twice the fort was destroyed. Nevertheless, Bhati kings never gave up and the city was
rebuilt every time it was savaged. Sometimes rulers from Delhi attacked as caravans were
stopped to collect taxes and trade goods. In 1294 A.D., Ala-ud-din Khilaji attacked and
the fort was besieged.
12
This is one of the longest known sieges in history, which lasted
nine years. In the end, Bhati lost the battle and the females performed johar.
13
After this
battle, fort was abandoned for a long time. There was another battle in fourteenth century
and the fort was again a flourishing trading city in fifteenth century.
14
There was a long
political stability after Bhati ruler Maharawal Bhīma Singh made an alliance with
Mughals. Mughal in turn protected the fort, as it was an easy entrance from the west into
the Mughal Empire.

During all these battles, the fort suffered damages and was repaired and reconstructed
several times. Over time, the original mud construction was replaced with stone to make
it more resistant to attacks.

In early nineteen century, Bhati kingdom had a vast area and its boundaries reached their
farthest known extent. By 1820, the kingdom was attacked by different rulers from

12
Antonio Martinelli, and George Michell, Princely Rajasthan: Rajput palaces and mansions (Vendome
Press, New York, 2004), 238.
13
Johar is a practice in Indian Rajput culture where women sacrifice themselves on a pier of fire. This
practice happened in mass where every female ended her life to keep her dignity in case their kingdom lost
the battle.
14
Antonio Martinelli, and George Michell, Princely Rajasthan: Rajput palaces and mansions (Vendome
Press, New York, 2004), 238.
17

various directions and large parts of the kingdom were lost.
15
Owing to this huge loss, the
fort was evacuated once again. This was the decline of Bhati rule for Jaisalmer. During
the later years of the century trade declined as Mughal Empire declined and East India
Company came to power. Jaisalmer depended heavily on trade through land. It was a
major trade post on the east-west land trade route; the Europeans depended on trade
through sea. The city suffered badly with all these developments. Jaisalmer became a
British state under the same name, but the Bhati family still owned the fort.

Since the city stood in middle of desert, its location saved it from invaders. Hence, with
no traders or invaders, the city remained unaltered, away from any influence, for either
good or bad. After independence, it was connected with rest of the country with road
(1958) and railways (1969). Jaisalmer became a tourist destination. Today, it is an
internationally known tourist destination.

Architecture: Plan, Fort Wall and Building Types
The city of Jaisalmer is divided in two parts, the fort and the taleti. The fort is the initial
settlement, sitting on top of trikuta hill whereas taleti, or the lower town as it is
sometimes called, is the town northeast of the hill. The lower town was fortified in 1750
A.D. by Maharawal Mulraj with an outer wall, which encloses the lower town as well as
the fort.
16
The outer wall has four entrance gates; one of them leads to the lake Gadisar,

15
Antonio Martinelli, and George Michell, Princely Rajasthan: Rajput palaces and mansions (Vendome
Press, New York, 2004), 239.
16
George Michell, and Philip Davies, The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India (Viking, 1989), vol.
2, 378.
18

which was a primary source of water for the town (Figure 1.3). The lower town is more
organized and the streets look formally arranged. The fort with its high wall acts as a
barrier against cold wind and protects the lower town.

Owing to its isolated location from other kingdoms, there is very little outside influence
seen on the building style. Although it was a trading post, the architecture is mostly
Rajput with a few Islamic features. European influence is minimal, and can only be
observed in few late nineteenth century buildings.

Figure 1.3: Suraj pol, entrance gate to the fort. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

19

Jaisalmer is called the golden city for the yellow brown sandstone used in all the
construction. It is locally available and still used as a building material. The fort itself
was built as a royal residence and for the people who served the royal family.

There was no major planning pattern and the city evolved over time. There are layers of
centuries of construction practices. The entrance to the fort leads directly to a city square
known as Dushera chowk, where royal complex is situated. This was developed for the
ease of trade. Dushera chowk is surrounded by palaces and merchant mansions called
haveli. It is here that all the trade happened in front of the king.

The architectural practices are responsive to the harsh climate, the desert sun and the cold
winter winds. The streets are narrow and the buildings are tall (Figure 1.4). These
proportions are common in vernacular practices to take advantage of mutual shading. In
addition, the houses are deep and narrow, with private courtyards for outdoor living. The
people who constructed the city acknowledged the importance of keeping stone dry for
its structural stability. Hence, the fort wall was constructed in layers to drain all the water
outside of the fort.

The fort and its premises were built for the royal family and people serving them. The
settlement included royal palaces, houses for the royal household, and haveli for trading
merchants. The city grew as trade flourished. The merchants became wealthy and their
20

houses more intricate. Some of the finest carving found in Jaisalmer fort is in these
haveli.

The king’s palace known as raja ka mahal was constructed at the highest point
surrounded by the royal complex. There is a cluster of royal palaces along with haveli. In
the center is the city square, known as Dushera chowk. The royal complex stands to the
north and east of the square, whereas mansions are to the south and west of the square.
17

Traditionally, this square was used for trading goods with caravans. This is the place
where most of the business for the town happened. All these structures are built out of
yellow sandstone, without any exception.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the royal family moved to lower city of
Jaisalmer, and the palace complex has been unoccupied since. The haveli were also
abandoned and almost all of these structures were neglected. Most of them were in poor
state until the late twentieth century when some of them collapsed. At the turn of the
twenty-first century, some of these places were restored or rebuilt. Work continues to
protect these architectural marvels.

17
George Michell, and Philip Davies, The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India (Viking, 1989), vol.
2, 378.
21

Figure 1.4: Land use plan of the fort. Drawing by Bombay Collaborative.

The Fort Wall
The fort wall, also constructed out of sandstone, was designed to protect the people
against invaders as well as weather. It has approximately 150 bastions and multiple layers
of construction. Most of the texts refer that there are 99 or 100 bastions in the wall.
Difference also lies in what one considers a bastion. The most recent survey conducted
by Bombay Collaborative came up with seven bastions in pitching, 73 in outer wall and
22

73 in inner wall. This makes the total number of bastions approximately 150.
18
This 30
feet high wall is built completely with dry masonry. The stones sit on top of each other by
sheer gravity.

The wall was built in layers, physically as well as chronologically. The fort wall is
composed of five different elements and was incrementally constructed over the
centuries. The original fort built in 1156 was constructed out of mud. The original wall
was built in mud, repaired several times, and eventually constructed in stone. The major
construction of the wall happened during 1578-1624 A.D., under the rule of Racal Bhīma
Singh.
19
Majority of bastions were added as gun platforms from 1633-1647. Not only was
it built in parts, it was also repaired many times after suffering damage in several wars
(Figure 1.5)
The different layers of wall outwards to inwards are the pitching, earth slope, outer wall,
mori, and inner wall (Figure 1.6). The pitching is the lower most section of the fort wall,
very small in height as compared to other sections. It was built as a retaining wall to hold
the earth slope in place. The outer wall runs parallel to the inner fort wall. It is a
secondary wall, lower in height than the inner wall. The section between outer wall and
inner wall is called the mori. This is a pathway with varying sections, ten to fifteen feet
wide and originally designed to provide for the sanitation and drainage requirements of

18
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd., “Stabilization and Conservation of
Walls, Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008, 118.
19
G. H. R. Tillotson, The Rajput Palaces: The Development of an Architectural Style 1450-1750 (Yale
University Press, 1987), 122.
23

the fort. The inner wall encloses the city with 73 bastions. The bastions were watch
towers for the city and later accommodated families of the guards.
20

Figure 1.5: The fort wall, with its five elements visible together. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

20
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd., “Stabilization and Conservation of
Walls, Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008, 118.
24

Figure 1.6: Various stages of chronological development of the fort wall. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

25

Buildings
The fort was constructed for the royal family and others serving them. Later the
merchants came and started living inside the fort. Hence, the buildings can be divided
into palaces, houses, havelis, and temples. All of the palaces are located around the
Dushera chowk. This royal complex consists of king’s palace (raja ka mahal), queen’s
palace (rani ka mahal), Juna mahal (the oldest surviving structure, in original Rajput
style), Gaj Vilas, and other auxiliary structures. These buildings were all built before the
nineteenth century but at different times. Merchants were mostly Jains and had temples
built inside the fort. There were seven temples built between the fifteenth and sixteenth
century.
21
These all temples are devoted to Jain saints.

The real architectural marvel of Jaisalmer fort is the haveli. This is where most of the
original architecture can be seen in excellent condition. The small covered balconies
called jharokha are the most beautiful architectural feature. These are a signature element
of the Rajput style and are found all over the state. Patwa ki haveli (a haveli belonging to
the merchant family named patwa) have so many jharokha that it becomes difficult to see
the wall behind them.

Character defining features for houses and haveli are jharokha, thresholds, otla (platform
connecting house to street), materials, and carvings. Another important feature of these

21
George Michell, and Philip Davies, The Penguin guide to the monuments of India (Viking, 1989),
volume 1, 290.
26

houses is the courtyard.
22
The houses do not connect the interior with the street. The only
connection to street is an otla, an entrance door and the rest of the walls are solid. This
monotony is broken by carvings and jharoka at upper levels of the house. The interiors
have small square courtyards. If the house is bigger, there will be multiple courtyards
providing different level of privacy to the residents (Figure 1.7). The courtyards are small
to combat the extreme desert climate.

Figure 1.7: Housing clusters inside the fort. Image from Stones in Sand by Kulbhushan Jain.

Haveli is a much bigger house with multiple courtyards, and carving that is more
intricate. The level of details in carving increased with the wealth of the merchant. There
are currently six havelis inside the fort. Patwao ki haveli is magnificent with very
detailed carving in stone and complete façade covered with jharokha, except for the street
level. The Patwa family had five brothers and each had a house built together in a cluster.

22
Kulbhushan Jain, Stones in the Sand: The Architecture of Rajasthan (Marg Publications, Mumbai, 2001),
90.
27

Only two of the five havelis survive now. Other examples inside the fort include Nathmal
ji ki haveli, and Salim Singh ki haveli. The havelis in the fort are now house museums or
used for some other purpose. One of them was used as a primary school for boys during
the last two decades of twentieth century.
23
None functions as a home anymore.

Spaces within Indian architecture often serve multiple functions throughout the day and
this pattern occurred in Jaisalmer as well. In the morning, residents start at top most level
of the house and as the temperature increases with the day, people move towards the
lower level to escape the heat. During the night when it gets cold, the heat stored in thick
walls keep the occupants warm.

Contemporary construction within the fort does have western influences but the use of
local stone has somewhat contributed to maintaining the character of the place. This
practice also helped the stone masons to survive. There are also some examples where
cement is used for new construction.

Natural Threats
As previously mentioned, the fort sits on a porous rock over sand. Adding to this is the
fact that sandstone itself is vulnerable to water seepage. Several structures have collapsed
owing to an excess of water inside the fort. Seismic instability is another natural cause
adding to the deterioration of the structures.

23
Kulbhushan Jain, Stones in Sand: The Architecture of Rajasthan (Marg Publications, Mumbai, 2001), 92.
28

Figure 1.8: Soil erosion on the northern slope. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

Over the years with changes in climate, rainfall in the desert has increased fivefold. This
has contributed greatly to instability of the structures. Of the 490 structures inside the
fort, approximately 80 have collapsed due to excess rains and seepage of water in the
foundation.
24
The fort wall is suffering equally from increased rains (Figure 1.8). A
record rainfall in 1999 resulted in a lot of damage. More recently, another 40 feet section
of wall collapsed in the 2011 monsoon. This section is still not repaired; with another
monsoon season setting in, it is a great concern.
25
The poor state of this section of the fort
wall is not only regretful, but it is also a threat to human life.

The rock on which the fort is built, sits on a geological fault line, running from India all
the way to Afghanistan. It is causing a lot of ground activity. The rock on which the fort
sits is showing differential settlements due to water seepage over decades.

24
World Monuments Fund, “Restoration of Jaisalmer Fort, Rajasthan India. Second Technical Mission,
Assessment of Outer Fort Wall,” (New York, May 2000), 5.
25
Vimal Bhatia, “Repair work at Sonar fort suspended due to lack of funds,” Times of India, May 13, 2012.
29

The Geological Survey of India (along with other agencies) conducted various tests on
the stability of the fort and the results are worrying. The site needs to be continuously
monitored and there is a huge ground settlement in the southwest section of the foothill.
This adds to the already weakened foundations.

Human Threat
Human activities are an equal threat to the stability of the fort. Although Jaisalmer fort
was built several centuries ago, and human habits and lifestyles have changed, very few
alterations were made to the fort. The systems designed long ago are still functioning, but
with increased loads. Not only the population inside the fort increased but also the large
number of tourists adds to this extra load on the systems.

Drainage inside the fort is the biggest issue of all. It poses the highest threat to the
stability of the structure. With the changes in lifestyle and in an effort to meet with
demands of increasing number of tourists, the sources of water supply inside the fort
were supplemented. Apart from wells inside the fort, pipelines were laid to provide
running water. The extra water was supplied into the fort for growing needs, but no
attempts were made for its proper exit. Originally, all drainage was directed outside of the
fort, but the new system drained directly into the rock on which fort stands (Figure 1.9).

30

Figure 1.9: View of Ghutnali, drain on the slope. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.
31

Figure 1.10: View of collapsed inner fort wall. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.
Given the porous properties of the rock, water seeped in and caused catastrophic changes.
This, combined with increased rainfall, worked to deteriorate many foundations. As a
result, the queen’s palace and king’s palace partially collapsed, many houses crumbled,
and the fort wall is in great danger (Figure 1.10). The streets were not designed to carry
so much runoff. This extra water also caused settlements in the soil itself.

Jaisalmer residents depend heavily on tourism. It is the only source for their livelihood.
To meet the demands of increasing tourism, new hotels were constructed inside the fort
walls. There is no check on the number of hotels or new constructions. The materials and
systems used in the new construction are modern and mismatch with the existing old
system. They are causing stress in the rock on which the fort sits. Hotels and shops
32

developed for tourism, which in turn called for signage and other methods to promote
business. Today there are huge boards on buildings, which disrupt the visual integrity of
the whole city. The fort has also been subject to inappropriate repair work using cement
mortar (Figure 1.11). Cement mortar is harder than stone. When the mortar dries, it fit so
tightly that the stone cracked, so more cement was applied, which led to a vicious cycle.
Cement mortar also needs paint, compromising the yellow golden harmony of the fort.

Figure 1.11: Repair work done in cement mortar, destroying historic fabric and visual coherence. Photo by
Bombay Collaborative.

The biggest issue of all is people who live inside the fort and take care of it on a daily
basis are unaware of the damage they are causing by their lifestyles. Some recent efforts
to educate them are helping to some extent. People who live inside the fort love their
homes, but they never realized the consequences for their actions.
33

There are so many issues, which need urgent attention, but the sheer scale of fort makes it
impossible. There are presently at least ten agencies working together to restore the glory
of Jaisalmer, but a more planned effort is required.

34

CHAPTER - 2: ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI)
The Fort Wall

35

The Archeological Survey of India (ASI) is the chief government agency for all
archeology and conservation related work. It is administered by the Ministry of Culture.
ASI funds archeological research and protects cultural heritage.
26
The major duties of
ASI are conservation of ancient monuments, excavations and archeological research, and
epigraphic studies. It also maintains several museums across the nation, creates various
publications related to the field, and regulates legislation related to these activities.

History
The first conservation efforts in India started in 1784 with formation of Asiatic Society of
India, Calcutta.
27
This group formed, by Sir William Jones, surveyed and documented
various monuments across India. The important discoveries by this group include
Kushana dynasty, and several chronological corrections in the history of India.
28
They
deciphered many ancient Indian languages. The group contributed greatly to the
formation of the Bengal Regulation XIX in 1810, the very first regulation protecting the
monuments of India.

In 1848, the first proposal to establish ASI was turned down by the government, although
they gave grants to individuals to carry out research work. However, political
developments of the period disrupted the research expeditions. In 1861, Lord

26
“About Us,” Archeological survey of India, accessed August 10, 2012,
http://www.asi.nic.in/asi_aboutus.asp.
27
“History,” Archeological survey of India, accessed August 10, 2012,
http://www.asi.nic.in/asi_aboutus_history.asp. – All further information about history is from this source.
28
At that time, the correct chronological history of India was not known. Many centuries were missing. It
was through discovery of coins and other artifacts from several dynasties that these gaps were filled.
36

Cunningham attempted another proposal to the government to take interest in
archeological studies in India. His proposal was approved and he was appointed as the
Archeological Surveyor of India. The legislation provided funds to carry out
archeological research, gave him work force, and defined duties for the position of the
Director.

In 1863, the first act was passed by the government to protect Indian heritage. It was
called Act XX and stated, “To prevent injury to and preserve buildings remarkable for
their antiquity or for their historical or architectural value.” After this, a detailed study
of the monuments and styles of the entire nation was carried out. The various states of
India were told to document their properties.

ASI was abolished and reestablished several times with new viceroy appointed. The
official posts and responsibilities also were jumbled up. Due to all these developments,
research, documentation, and publication work suffered. In 1871, ASI was established as
a separate department of government with Lord Cunningham as Director General. An
extensive archeological and architectural survey was carried out.

Political developments lead to the enactment of Treasure Trove Act of 1878 to protect
findings during chance digging. Major reforms happened in 1899 when five circles were
formed comprising different parts of the country to regionalize surveys and
administration. The final authority was vested in the Director, who was the governing
37

head for all of the circles. In 1901, Sir John Marshall was appointed the Director General
of the ASI. He introduced several reforms including the framing of guidelines for all
excavation and conservation work carried out throughout the country. These guidelines
known as the Marshall’s Guide continue to be used today as an important guidebook for
all the work done by ASI.
29
Major items stated are:
1.Hypothetical restorations were unwarranted, unless they were essential to
the stability of a building;
2.Every original member of a building should be preserved intact, and
demolition and reconstruction should be undertaken only if the structure
could not be otherwise maintained;
3.Restoration of carved stone, carved wood or plaster-molding should be
undertaken only if artisans were able to attain the excellence of the old;
and
4.In no case should mythological or other scenes be re-carved.

Another major development was the publication of annual reports. However, the most
important change was the enactment of the “Ancient Monuments Preservation Act” in
1904. This act established the legal protection for all buildings and archeological sites in
India, which are culturally important. Apart from the administrative changes, several
major archeological discoveries were made which changed the chronological history of
India, including discovery of the Indus valley civilization sites at Harappa, and Mohenjo-
Daro.

29
“History,” Archeological survey of India, accessed August 10, 2012,
http://www.asi.nic.in/asi_aboutus_history.asp.
38

People who succeeded him brought about some modifications in administrative setup but
later political instability did not allow much. The Second World War happened and soon
after India became an independent nation.

Post-independence developments include the formation of legislation to protect
monuments of defined importance to the nation and state. ASI was divided into 24 circles
according to state and region. The first law to be enacted was the “Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance)
Act” in 1951. Thereafter the AMASR Act 1958, and the Antiquities and Art Treasures
Act 1972 were adopted to protect and conserve the cultural heritage of the country, and to
stop the illegal digging of archeological sites and moving of antiques. The monuments,
which come under ASI’s jurisdiction, are called protected monuments. These acts define
the protected monuments at national and state level and the authority of ASI over the
cultural and built heritage of the country.

Current Administration
There are currently 24 circles under the central administration. These are divided
according to the geographical regions, and the headquarters are generally located in state
capitals. Larger states have multiple circles.

The various responsibilities for the circles include the conservation and maintenance of
the protected monuments, enacting AMASR and Antiquities and Art Treasure Act 1972,
39

surveying and researching for new archeological findings, and research and
documentation. They take care of various sites under their custody, conserve them, and
develop programs to educate people about them. Other responsibilities include
maintaining site museums and other related buildings.

The working methodology for ASI is complex. It has several categories of monuments,
sites, landscapes, and other heritage to protect. These vary from world heritage sites, to
sites of national importance, to properties important at state level. The working mandates
change with the importance and designation assigned to the property.

The common rules followed for ASI protected monuments and sites adhere to AMASR
and Marshall’s guide, which not only protects the site but also its surroundings. Area
around the site from 330 to 1000 feet diameter also comes under ASI administration. The
330 feet radius is called the ‘prohibited’ area and the 1000 feet radius is called the
‘regulated’ area. Any construction activity in this radius should be approved by ASI, or
state governing agency. This radius is precisely set by ASI according to each site.

Legal framework for ASI: AMASR
ASI is a government body; hence, there are laws, which act as a mandate for all ASI
projects. ASI’s working guideline is the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites
and Remains Act (AMASR). It was based on the British Act of 1904, first written more
than a century ago. The AMASR has been repeatedly amended since then, most recently
40

in 2010. Most ASI protected properties are ‘dead’ properties, either museums or empty
structures serving as tourist spots, or important archeological sites.

Act of 1904
Originally drafted to protect the archeological sites in British occupied India, it also
covered present day Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Burma. In 1904, in light of several major
archeological expeditions, and the law was focused on saving the valuable findings from
these efforts.

The first section gives the name of the law, which regions it is applicable to, and the
purpose. The second section is definitions of the terms used in the document. The
definitions are elaborate to cover all possible meanings. The next section explains the
process and documentation required to declare a monument protected under the law. A
public notice should be issued before declaring a protected monument and any objections
are invited. The central government then decides the status of the property.

The fourth section is all about powers of a collector.
30
The act invests power in the
collector to acquire a threatened property, be a guardian for public properties, and help
maintain privately owned properties. He can make an agreement with the owner to
preserve, protect, and repair the monument.

30
There is no mention as to who a collector is and how is he appointed, neither do the definitions define the
post.
41

The fifth section is dedicated to enforcement. The collector can ask the owner of a
property to take actions necessary for conservation (as per their agreement). The act also
provides endowments of up to 1000 rupees to owners to carry out any repair work on the
monument. There was a lot of power invested with the collector and the commissioner.
31

Under British colonial rule, law and order were enforced by force; no one can challenge
the authority. This allowed exercising all these powers to protect the monuments.

Another clause mentions all duties of an owner to be transferable with the title to the
property. The agreement between collector and the owner was transferred to the new
owner in case the property changed hands. There is also a mention of compulsory
purchase. Where by government reserved the right to purchase the land on which the
monument sits if it ever comes for sale. It also gave the right to purchase a monument
falling out of use or facing a threat of demolition.

The act includes relief for religious properties and makes exception wherever required.
The places of worship are specifically protected by law but allowed people to carry out
their rituals.

Another important aspect of the act of 1904 was the rules to control mining in area
surrounding archeological sites. It fixed the boundaries to which this rules apply. Mining,

31
The commissioner is a post for government official who takes care of a city or a town, something similar
to a sheriff.
42

quarrying, excavating, blasting or like operations were not allowed in the protected
area.
32

The fines imposed for violating the act of 1904 were high. Any person carrying out any
activities, which are not allowed, without prior permission, could be fined up to 200
rupees. The penalty for causing any damage to the monument itself was 5000 rupees
and/or three months of imprisonment. In twentieth century, 5000 rupees was a substantial
fine and thus this was a serious offense.
33
The act also provided for compensation. If
there is a financial loss, the owner is paid due compensation. If the government occupies
the monument, the owner is paid full compensation. Also of importance was the clause
about donations and contributions. The collector or commissioner can accept financial aid
for the preservation of protected monuments.

The next section is all about the duties of a commissioner. His job is to carry out regular
inspection of properties, keep a record of the work done, and look after the future needs
of the monument. The public has the right to access the property, but it also mentions a
fine in case one fails to follow the rules. The other sections include provisions to protect
illegal movement of antiquities and digging in and around archeological sites. The act is
very comprehensive given the time it was written.

32
Constitution of India, AMASR act of 1959, section 10 (A) sub section (1).
33
Cost of a living for a middle class family in 1904 was really low and 5000 rupees was a lot of money.
43

The AMASR Act of 1958
This post-independence law to protect ancient monuments was based on the Act of 1904,
but was detailed out precisely according to the legal framework of an independent India.
The penalties remained the same, given that the financial conditions of people were
similar. Violation of the AMASR was made punishable by law; it also defined which
court would preside over such cases.

The definitions section added on to the original section from the Act of 1904, including
definitions of sites, officers, and construction work but it does not define significance.
The Act of 1904 did not consider intangible heritage, since it was primarily written to
protect archeological sites. The revision after independence also failed to acknowledge
this aspect of conservation.

The clauses about the right to purchase the land, agreement with the owner to protect the
monument, and endowments to owner are all the same. The process to declare a property
protected changed slightly as the administration system changed. The period for the
complete process was now 60 days instead of 30. The right to land acquisition was kept
the same, but cultivation was allowed in the protected land with certain restrictions.
The central government may, by order, direct that any building
constructed by any person within a protected area in contravention of the
provisions of sub-section 9(1) shall be removed within a specified period
and if person refuses or fail to comply with the order, the collector may
44

cause the building to be removed and the person shall be liable to pay the
cost of such removal.
34

This clause is important as it gives the right to demolish illegal construction. However, it
does not define the “specified” time for removal of such structures. The penalties and
other provisions are all kept same as in the Act of 1904. In addition, there is a clause to
protect officers for action taken under this act. It gives the power to ASI to make rules for
the protection and conservation of monuments.

AMASR Act of 1959
The AMASR Act of 1959 is an addition to the act of 1958. The definitions now include
technological mentions like photography, filming and copying. It provides for protection
of monuments from modern technological threats.

It also detailed out the public access to protected monuments. Monuments are categorized
as A and B categories, which decide the hours of access and fees for Indian and
international citizens. This also prohibited any human activity like eating, drinking,
partying, and the buying and selling of goods in the protected area, in and around the
monument. The fine was still 5000 rupees for violation of this act.

Another section was added about construction. It details all the processes related to
construction, all the license required and ways to obtain them. It makes provisions for

34
Constitution of India, AMASR act of 1958, section (19) sub-section 2.
45

future archeological explorations. It requires three months prior notice to government and
approval to perform any such act. The rules for filming, photography and other digital
media were also included.

AMASR amendment I of 2010
The first amendment of 2010 improves the original act, making it more stringent and
investing power in ASI and related agencies. The act requires for all construction
happening within the protected area to acquire permission from the ASI Director General,
including construction, reconstruction, repair, and renovation. It also allows for the
boundary of the protected area to be extended on a case-by-case basis.

The amendment also provided for formation of an expert advisory committee to help
determine the impacts of construction activity in and around a protected monument/site.
The central government or Director General can seek advice from the committee for any
construction permits. The committee recommendations are to be published on a website.

AMASR amendment II of 2010
The second amendment of 2010 is more important and applies enormous changes to the
preservation practices ASI follows. It introduces new levels of administration and a new
department called the National Monument Authority (NMA). The clause provides for the
formation of NMA, details the number of members and their qualifications, and requires
that NMA committee members have no personal financial interests in the projects. It
46

gives NMA full authority over monuments and sites and only the central government can
supersede their authority.

Another major improvement is the involvement of public opinion. If the protected area is
to be increased from its set boundaries of 300 feet, the NMA must issue notice and invite
public objections, especially of the local people living there.

It requires NMA to categorize monuments and or archeological sites according to
significance to facilitate administration of these sites. The central government should
publish this list of monuments according to national or regional importance on its
website. A committee decides what is best at the regional or local level, or on a case-by-
case basis.

The request for a construction permit is made to the ASI Director General of ASI; NMA
prepares an impact report and provide recommendations to ASI. Once the permission for
construction is granted, NMA can withdraw the permission and stop all construction
activity if it feels it is required to do so.

Another important section of the amendment is the inclusion of INTACH. ASI is directed
to prepare heritage by-laws in consultation with INTACH. The act then details the scope
of these heritage by-laws, including that they be local and site specific. Currently
47

INTACH has started framing by laws for thirteen categories of protected monuments.
35

NMA will review these by-laws and then send them to Parliament for inclusion in the
Constitution. It also allows the central government to intervene, ask ASI to survey, and
prepare reports/plans for protected monuments and sites.

The most important power for the NMA is that none of its authority can be challenged in
court. No court can overrule NMA decisions to save the monuments. The amendment
also increases the penalties. For the first time since 1904, the penalties are increased from
5000 to 200,000 Indian rupees with two years of imprisonment. Any offense by a
government officer is punishable by three years in jail.

AMASR amendment I of 2011
The last amendment made in 2010 precisely describes all aspects of National Monument
Authority. The 2011 addendum takes care of salary of members, the work method they
should adopt and administrative details.

Important part of this is the mention of call for public opinion. NMA when categorizing
monuments must issue notice inviting any public objection within 30 days. These
objections are presided over by Director General of ASI or the central government and if
required necessary alterations are done.

35
Richi Verma, “INTACH identifies 13 topologies for heritage bylaws,” Times of India, Sept. 25, 2012.
48

Other sections detail the previous mentioned functions of the authority, like impact
assessment, heritage by-laws etc. Last, it mentions seven categories of monuments.
36
The
categorization is rather disappointing. All that is mentioned is the about world heritage
sites and number of tourists. The first three categories are relative to WHS status and the
remaining categories are concerned with ticketed entry. A more precise and better
classification is required for heritage with national and international significance.

Category I: Protected monuments/archeological sites inscribed on the World
Heritage Cultural Sites list of UNSECO.
Category II: Protected monuments/archeological sites included in the Tentative
List by the World Heritage Committee.
Category III: Protected monuments/archeological sites identified for inclusion in
the World Heritage Tentative List of UNESCO.
Category IV: Ticketed protected monuments and archeological sites (other than the
World Heritage Sites and sites included in the Tentative List).
Category V: Monuments and sites with adequate flow of visitors identified for
charging entry fee.
Category VI: Living monuments, which receive large number of visitors/pilgrims.
Category VII: Other monuments located in the Urban/ Semi urban limits and in the
remote villages.
Category VIII: Or such other category as the Authority may deem fit.

36
The Constitution of India, part (2) chapter 3(i) section 24 subsection (2) “schedule.”
49

Economic Aspects
ASI projects are funded by the government. Every year there is a set amount allotted in
budget for preservation. The funds are received from ministry of culture. These are called
as planned funds. The funds received are then distributed to State Department of
Archeology (SDA) or various circles. The circles prepare annual report of their expenses
and any unused funds are then surrendered back to center. The funds received other than
government funds are called unplanned funds. These include funds from outside agencies
and other organizations, which work towards conservation of heritage.

The Jaisalmer fort wall project was carried out with planned funds until World
Monuments Fund came in. Later on grants from several international institutions were
received to carry out a more planned conservation of the fort. The financial support
received from World Monuments Fund through American Express and other private
sources was utilized to restore the king’s palace and the fort wall.

The Project
The ASI project at Jaisalmer fort is the restoration of the fort walls. Jaisalmer is one of
the last living forts in the world. The fort is facing major issues due to heavy rainfall and
excessive water. The foundation of the wall is unstable due to this extra water. ASI along
with World Monuments Fund and other local government bodies is conserving the fort
wall.

50

Figure 2.1: Various elements of the fort wall. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.
51

The fort wall is constructed of five elements (figure 2.1). The outer most element is the
pitching, a low wall constructed to retain the soil and the slope. The pitching consists of
the pitching wall and a toe wall, running at the bottom; these together retain the earth
slope. The height of the pitching varies from 16 feet to 26 feet, reaching 40 feet at some
places. The present condition of pitching is poor. It is one of the priority projects of the
multiphase wall conservation initiative to fix the bulging and collapsed section. The
pitching retains the earth, not structurally but functionally. The new construction does act
as retaining wall.
37
After the completion of reports by World Monuments Fund and
Bombay collaborative, ASI is reconstructing the collapsed sections of the pitching wall
using specifications provided by them.

The next element that composes the fort wall is the slope. It is the natural slope of the
rock on which fort stands. It is also filled with soil at places to cover the foundation of the
outer fort wall. It protects the foundation from human impacts and natural agents. The
slope is eroded due to heavy rainfall. There are ridges formed in slope due to erosion
(Figure 2.2). In addition, people dump construction waste on the slope, which displaces
the soil and cause further erosion. There are sewage tanks built on the slope, which
provide for new drainage systems installed by the people.

The outer wall is the next layer and it is the layer visible from a distance along with the
inner wall. It is a perimeter wall running along the length of the fort. The condition of

37
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd., “Stabilization and Conservation of
Walls, Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008.
52

outer wall for most sections is bad. ASI have repaired and restored some sections of outer
wall.
The next element is the mori. The mori is open space that runs between the outer and
inner walls. The width of the mori varies from ten to fifteen feet. It was designed to drain
storm water runoff and provide space for guards to walk around the fort. Currently, the
mori is clogged with garbage, filled with debris, and there is construction stopping the
continuity of the space (figure 2.3). The Jaisalmer stone paving in the mori is weathering
badly (figure 2.4).

Figure 2.2: Soil erosion on the northern slope. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

Last element is the inner wall. It is made up of bastions and the wall connecting them.
The bastions are watchtowers. Later, these also served as homes for guards who were
stationed at the wall. Some of the bastions are still occupied and converted into hotels.
Some of the bastions are in disrepair and in danger of collapse.
53

Figure 2.3: Debris lying in the Mori. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

54

Figure 2.4: Worn out original stone paving in mori. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.
Current conditions
The heavy rains of 1999 caused huge damage to the wall and other houses inside the fort.
A few sections of the pitching wall and bastions collapsed. One wing of the king’s palace
collapsed. Due to this, the fort was placed on the World Monuments Watch List of 100
Most Endangered Site. JIJ did a lot of work and was instrumental in getting help from the
World Monuments Fund. Immediate restoration and repair work were carried out for
collapsed bastions and the palace.

WMF surveyed the fort and recommended a range of documentation and stabilization
measures between 1997 and 2001. It produced two detailed reports, recommending that
extensive survey and geological monitoring be conducted. In 2003, ASI, World
55

Monuments Fund, and National Culture Fund signed a memorandum of understanding.
This resulted in the involvement of the Bombay Collaborative, who prepared a
comprehensive report, including an extensive survey and documentation, which lasted
from 2005-2008. The fort was mapped and photographed; a plan showing all of the
buildings inside the fort was prepared. The report also provided with extensive condition
documentation of the fort as well as all the structures inside, including the fort wall.
Along with this, a geotechnical study was conducted by the Geological Survey of India.

The report prepared by Bombay Collaborative with other agencies identified the major
issues related to conservation of the fort. Some of them can be listed as subsurface
movements in the sections of rock on which the fort stands, the fault line which passes
through the southwest section of the hill is making is highly unstable and there is an
urgent need for an integrated water management plan for the fort. The report also
suggested a working plan to conserve the fort. Priority was assigned to the repair of the
original drainage system and other ways to drain water outside the fort.

The original drainage system took all water outside the fort and away from the base rock
fort stands on. There were systems for storm water runoff and drainage from houses.
Inside the fort, natural slope of ground was used to collect all the water and drain it
through the mori. The mori discharged into three huge drains (locally called as ghutnali)
on to the slope of the hill. Each ghutnali is approximately ten feet wide (figure 2.5).
These drained all the surface water away from the fort. With new amenities being
56

Figure 2.5: Ghutnali, original drain on the slope clogged with garbage and plants. Photo by Bombay
Collaborative.
57

Installed and construction happening without the proper structural and system analysis,
all the water drained, into rock which supports the fort. This caused issues. The ancient
systems for drainage were ignored; fell into disrepair. The ghutnali were clogged with
garbage and plastic; plants grew in them and these could no longer function.
38

Technical Details
Jaisalmer fort is under ASI’s protection from a long time and it has carried out
conservation work since 1979. Repairing and maintaining several properties including the
fort wall, havelis, and streets. Since 1982, ASI Jaipur circle is repairing and
reconstructing the fort wall at several sections. They fixed loose stones and the collapsed
sections of wall due to bulging. This work has been going on for more than 15 years on a
regular basis and always had a mention in their annual reports.
39
However, no attention
was paid to the cause of bulging, millions were spent on rebuilding and repairing sections
of wall but no effort was made to treat the cause for all this damage. After the huge
damage in 1999 from rain, a lot of work was done. (Figure 2.6) ASI reports for year 2000
and 2001 are extensive in sense what work was carried out. Due to limitations of
research, original ASI reports were not available for review and hence any further
comment is avoided.

38
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd.,“Stabilization and Conservation of Walls,
Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008, 7.
39
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd., “Stabilization and Conservation of
Walls, Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008.
58

Prior to WMF’s involvement, repair work at various sections of wall was carried out with
new stones and cement mortar. Not all the work was documented. Every project carried
out is mentioned in annual reports. The original Jaisalmer stone is no longer available.
New stone is utilized from a nearby quarry. The lime mortar is replaced with cement. It
was difficult to find artisans with traditional building skills. New stone is laid in mori
does not follow the pattern in which old courses were laid.

Due to individual and group efforts, Jaisalmer got international help and funding. The
World Monuments Fund got involved in 1997. WMF studied the fort and prepared three
technical reports. After the three bastions collapsed, another study was done. Finally, in
2003, a memorandum of understanding was signed and a comprehensive report was
prepared.

Figure 2.6: Southwest section of the Fort wall repaired by ASI. Photo by Bombay
Collaborative.
59

It suggested several measures for immediate repair, pointed out the shortcomings in ASI
current efforts and underlying issues. It also made recommendations for long term
conservation plans. The most important suggestion in these reports was to carry out an
extensive survey of the complete fort along with the wall. Map the existing conditions
and draft a plan. The fort itself was not documented; there was no comprehensive plan of
the fort. The report also suggested a geotechnical study to check the stability of the rock
on which fort stand.

Sociocultural Aspects
There are not any direct social impacts of the work done by ASI. The projects like palace
may generate some tourism. The projects like wall and king’s palace are important to the
integrity of the fort but the residents not are directly affected. To keep the wall in good
shape ensures the safety and well-being of the residents inside the fort. The fort wall is an
integral feature of Jaisalmer fort.

The locals benefit from the tourism. The fact that ASI is repairing the fort wall for more
than 30 years now proves the effort put into that. ASI with limited professionals for each
project is struggling from legal issues. ASI has enough financial help from government
but is incapable of enforcing all the mandates.

60

Figure 2.7: Pitching under construction. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

61

Conclusion
Current conditions require ASI to draft another amendment, which is much more
considerate about the present heritage of the country and considers enforcement more
seriously. ASI not only needs to protect the monuments but also other heritage properties
of the country. The definition of protected monuments should be revised to include much
more comprehensive list of cultural heritage. Apart from this, even if it cannot protect
other monuments it certainly can help draft laws for their legal protection.

The major issue as said before is of work force and enforcement. Apart from all these
stringent rules, there is a lot of illegal construction not only in Jaisalmer but at other sites
as well. The legal system has so many administrative layers that there are many
loopholes. Even if ASI wants to demolish unauthorized construction, there are so many
legal procedures involved that the original intention takes a setback. To site Jaisalmer’s
example, ASI and local authorities want to demolish illegal buildings inside the fort walls
but they are unable to do so. The reasons being, demolish required ASI to issue a notice
to the owner and there is no owner of these buildings on paper. They do not know whom
to serve the notice.
40
At some places, the illegal construction is part or extension to a
legal property. These complex conditions get involved in legal framework. The legal
procedures in India are very slow; sometimes it can take decades to reach a point where
an action can be taken. The whole system not to forget the prevailing corruption defeats
the purpose of constitution and in this case the AMASR act.

40
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd.,“Stabilization and Conservation
of Walls, Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008, 66.
62

There are for sure efforts to save the heritage of the country. It is successful at some
places and not at others. However, there is hope. The law itself is good with some minor
shortcomings but the application part of it is sad. With major amendments in recent years,
there is new hope that something can be improved; only time can tell what happens next.

63

CHAPTER - 3: INDIAN NATIONAL TRUST for ARTS and CULTURAL
HERITAGE (INTACH)
The Streetscape Project

64

Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) is one of the biggest non-
government organization (non-profit organizations) working to conserve the arts and
architecture of the country. Apart from obvious jobs such as educating people and
children about heritage, it also undertakes responsibilities like important legal
interventions, emergency response, and scholarships for professional education and
research.
41
INTACH raises funds and obtains sponsorships for conservation through
national and international initiatives. It has chapters all over the country and a few
international chapters as well.

History
The INTACH trust was formed from donations by Charles Wallace. He was from
England and posted in India for several years. Charles left his estate to his family with a
part of it to be set up to benefit India. He died and in 1982, a trust was set up in London.
42

In 1984, Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) was registered as
a non-government organization in the United Kingdom (UK). Its first project was Project
Ganga, an initiative to clean the Ganga River to conserve the natural habitat and cultural
practices related to the river.
43
With time, different departments or divisions were set up
to divide the administration. Given the vast variety and number of resources, this was
necessary. In 1986, INTACH (UK trust) successfully got permission from the UK
government for scholarships for Indian professionals to do research and study in England.

41
“Mission statement,” INTACH, accessed 15 January, 2012, http://www.intach.org/about-mission.asp.
42
“INTACH history,” INTACH, accessed 15 January, 2012, http://www.intach.org/about-history.asp.
43
“The history of INTACH,” INTACH Visakhapatanam chapter, accessed 24 Oct., 2012,
http://www.intachvizag.org/history/index.html.
65

Three years later, in 1987 INTACH completed its first listing of built heritage in India.
44

Various other achievements include establishment of many research institutes across the
nation. The first project where INTACH carried out actual conservation work in the field
was in 1998, in Jaisalmer.
45
In 2000, various administrative committees were formed. In
2004, INTACH celebrated the twentieth anniversary of its establishment. This was also
when INTACH adopted the charter for protection of architectural heritage and sites. It
lays the general guideline for working with heritage properties, which are important for
local and regional heritage but are not protected by law.

INTACH administration is centrally controlled from Delhi but the work is divided into
several chapters located all over the country. Although the administration is divided into
several chapters, it is also split into various divisions. Owing to India’s rich and varied
heritage, the divisions are like different departments- for example conservation division
looks after built heritage where as there are other divisions such as natural, material, and
intangible heritage. These divisions employ experts in the respective fields and are doing
a lot of advocacy and on fieldwork to protect the unique heritage of the country.

The very first conservation project for INTACH was the restoration of the Queen’s
palace in Jaisalmer, which was carried out in collaboration with Jaisalmer in Jeopardy. In
1996, Jaisalmer in Jeopardy was successful in nominating Jaisalmer to the World
Monuments Watch List of 100 Most Endangered Sites, and later received a World

44
“INTACH projects,” INTACH, accessed 15 January, 2012, http://www.intach.org/about-projects.asp.
45
“INTACH history,” INTACH, accessed 15 January, 2012, http://www.intach.org/about-history.asp.
66

Monuments Fund grant through American Express for restoration of the palace and this
was their very first project. They hired an architect and INTACH was involved to closely
monitor and implement the project. This project received the honorable mention from
UNESCO Asia-Pacific award for cultural heritage conservation in 2010. INTACH was
awarded another similar award for restoration of the king’s palace in 2012.
46

Philosophy: Charter for Protection of Architectural heritage and sites
ASI is a government agency with several laws and these laws act as a mandate. There
was no guide for INTACH professionals to look up. The efforts varied in different parts
of country, region-to-region and chapter to chapter. Given the diverse heritage, it became
difficult and thus some common guideline or reference was needed. In addition, the
properties INTACH looked after were not protected and hence the work carried out was
totally on a case-by-case basis. To make this practice more comprehensive a charter was
adopted.

In 2002, a workshop called National Policy for Heritage Conservation and Management
was conducted by INTACH.
47
This workshop also resulted in decision for drafting a
charter for INTACH. In 2004, Professor A.G. Krishna Menon and Navin Piplani were
engaged to prepare a draft of the Charter. This draft was prepared by consulting various
national and international documents and previous INTACH projects. It was revised in
several meetings. The final draft was presented two years later in the twentieth INTACH

46
These awards are given to recognize the best conservation practices across the world.
47
INTACH, “Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India,” (adopted
Nov. 2004), Introduction.
67

National Convention in November 2004. To celebrate their twentieth anniversary,
INTACH gathered professionals from around the country as well as some international
experts on conservation to review the charter for protection of architectural heritage and
sites.

INTACH adopted the Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage
and Sites in India. It is set to be revised every five years. It is required for all INTACH
professionals to follow the charter while conducting conservation work. It acknowledges
that the sites, which are not protected by ASI, also need to be taken care of and hence
forms a practical guideline for the same. The charter is well organized, parallel to western
standards but also considers the vernacular ways and Indian standards for conservation.
The chapters should follow it as a mandate for all their activities. INTACH charter was
drafted out in seven articles, each of which is briefly analyzed here.

The first article of the charter mentions purpose, clearly stating the need to conserve the
‘unprotected’ monuments. It identifies the pressures of development on built heritage and
ignorance of the residents for it. The most important issue it addresses is the concern over
legal protection of buildings currently in use. It not only mentions tangible heritage but
also uses the term living heritage. Living heritage as mentioned is comprised of the
tangible heritage and the skills or the intangible practices which can recreate, restore and
68

or protect the tangible heritage.
48
The technical skills are equally important and get their
due importance in the charter.

It also refers to all issues concerning conservation in India and considers the economic
benefits of preserving the properties and the employment opportunities it creates. The
final excerpts are as follows:
What to conserve will there is determined by those strategies of
conservation, which accommodate the imperatives of development and the
welfare of the community while seeking economically to achieve
maximum protection of the significant values of the architectural heritage
and site.
49

Second article mentions all categories of the heritage to be conserved and defines them. It
discusses what should be conserved. The cultural diversity and varied regional practices
for conservation of equally diverse heritage is very well taken care of. The charter
categorizes properties according to their importance and suggests treatment accordingly.
It categorizes the built heritage and set of rules to be followed for each category.
Protected and unprotected properties are to be treated differently. It mandates western or
modern practices for properties, which are of national and international importance, and
regional practices for lesser important heritage. It then categorizes architectural heritage

48
INTACH, “Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India,” (adopted
Nov. 2004), Part (1), Article (1), 1.2.
49
INTACH, “Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India,” (adopted
Nov. 2004), article 2.7.
69

and sites according to their significance and defines treatment methods for them. This is
very clever as it not only helps the intangible heritage but it addresses the issue of
bringing modern amenities to old houses and other structures. Along with structures, it
considers the cultural landscapes and settings around the structure as well.

The next article of the INTACH charter mentions the ethics to be followed in profession.
It specifies methods to be followed for conserving a historic property. To make sure the
properties are authentic, the charter conforms to the Nara Document on Authenticity.
50
It
includes a clause for the varied values of conservation and respects the diverse practices,
which are suited for regional properties. Conjectural work done by local artisans is
acceptable on terms that it is adhering to original practice and helps revive those building
technologies. It specifically mentions that the 300 feet prohibited area clause for
protected monuments should not to be followed for the unprotected sites. The prohibited
area clause works well for the case when most of the protected monuments are not
inhabited; some are situated very close to living cities where as most of the INTACH
sites are occupied. They are alive and thriving. To stop the development within their
periphery can be a threat to the property as there is a pressing need for availability of
development land. If this periphery rule is applied to all properties, there may be a lot of
public opposition.

50
Nara Document on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention was adopted in 1994 in
Nara, Japan to address issues concerning authenticity of cultural heritage around the world. More
information can be found at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1994/whc-94-conf003-inf8e.pdf.
70

The layers developed over time should not get preference over the local aesthetics. If the
context demands, these layers can be sacrificed. These layers are considered more of an
addition to original structure other than anything else in such cases. The vernacular
practices in themselves were sufficient to conserve the heritage with time. It did not keep
it as it was hundreds of years ago. Rather, practices and rituals keep structures
functioning and in good shape rather than preserving them in their original state. With
change in lifestyle, these practices either changed or diminished but the structures
remained there. Hence, the objective to preserve the skills is equally important.

The cultural and physical setting of an unprotected monument is important, as the people
who decide whether something is important, if it should be saved or demolished. The
charter accepts the concept of minimal intervention but does not make it mandatory. The
charter allows additions and alterations if they enhance the characteristic features of the
heritage. These items do mention what is required but not making it compulsory was
necessary, as in case of ‘unprotected’ monuments it is sometimes useful. It is important
as in some cases alterations are required, especially when the property is not protected by
any law, it can be threatened if these guidelines are too strict. However, the degree to
which these alterations are accepted should be defined more precisely. The charter
categorizes heritage according to its importance, so accordingly the degree of
intervention should also be defined. What percent of character defining features should
be retained? How far can one go and compromise on alteration when it is worth saving
the heritage property? These are few questions, which remain unanswered in this article.
71

If 75% of the property is altered, and the features are enhanced, can it still be called
conservation? The charter embraces the changes on the condition that it is a minimal loss
to the heritage but helps to continue and enhance socio-cultural practices.

The charter does not mandate reversibility. Given the fact that it addresses properties,
which are not of national importance, it is required to keep things flexible. This makes
the charter more adaptable. It is also not specific on issues like legibility of intervention.
Rather leaves it to conservation policy and the personal choice of the people involved,
with certain set guidelines. This is important given the variety of properties. One set of
rules will not work for all of them hence the feasible way are to mention the general
strategies to be followed. The charter is very flexible on the issue of demolition and
rebuilding. This supports the local artisans and keeps the tradition alive. The properties
under consideration are not of significance at national level and hence giving importance
to traditional skills and practices is justified.

The architect and the community clause talks about the role of conservation design. How
the role of conservation architect changes with architectural heritage, sites, and working
with local artisans. The values change but the attitude to conserve should always be the
same.

Article four lays down the objectives of conservation. The primary objective is to retain
the visual identity, with an emphasis on using traditional craftsmen and material for
72

carrying out any work with the vernacular properties. Next, it talks about adaptive re-use
of heritage properties. This is the first time charter mentions involvement of local people
in case of adaptive reuse project. Documentation before and after conditions of the
project is required for every conservation work. The restoration process is adequately
described and rebuilding is accepted by the charter. The only condition for rebuilding is
that it should promote local building techniques and beliefs. Other issues addressed in
this article are related to conservation work, like employment generation, use of material
and technologies, etc.

The INTACH charter first defines and then identifies the properties, which are of
significance. In order to decide what is significant, the knowledge of available properties
is crucial. Hence, an extensive survey is the initial step for defining the significance of
any property. A survey of available properties help in evaluation of significance, impact
of development plans and conservation planning complementary to development plans.
Hence, the next article is all about defining significance and listing of all the significant
properties.

INTACH is creating a National Register of Historic Properties. It is an attempt to create a
comprehensive list of important properties and categorize them according to significance.
This article clearly defines the historical importance of the property according to its
significance, integrity, and context. INTACH has adopted a grading system for buildings.
The different categories of significant properties defined in the charter are grade I*, grade
73

I, grade II and grade III. It also defines the survey methodology. A survey should provide
photograph, description, and significance according to criteria, ownership and other
extant.

The next article of the charter discusses the guidelines for conservation. It clearly lay out
that the periodic updates of the charter should be every five years. It also requires that the
local or regional guidelines be drafted for the region specific conservation needs.
51

Although, it does not mention who should draft these local guidelines, the central
authority or the chapters?

It then mentions the idea of heritage zones, which are historically important areas and
sensitive towards development. The next clause mentions inclusion of heritage zones into
town planning acts and regulations to be developed for activities in special areas. These
are legal issues and should be a concern for ASI. Given that, the scope and skills in ASI
are limited as compared to other similar agencies but ASI should mention these issues
apart from protected monuments. The last clause in this section mentions the role of
architect in propagating conservation.

The next section is all about management and education. It explains the responsibilities of
INTACH and contribution expected from local people. Given the vast variety of
resources and so many varied regions, the INTACH is divided into local, regional and

51
INTACH, “Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India,” (adopted
Nov. 2004), Part (III), Article (7), 7.2.
74

central chapters. The central chapter is the governing agency, looks after governing
issues, coordinating between regional and local chapters, and defines the responsibilities
of local chapters.

The local chapters are responsible for advocacy and creating awareness about heritage in
local people. It mentions several tasks for local chapters including coordinating with
educational institutions at all levels and educating craftspeople. Other responsibility of
local chapter is to prepare a documentation of local unprotected properties, to prepare an
annual “State of Architectural Heritage Report.” This report from all local chapters goes
to regional where it is compiled and the central office creates one such comprehensive
document for all heritage properties across the nation.

The charter mentions heritage funds and other innovative financial schemes, and it
encourages professionals to engage in dialogue with government agencies to implement
these schemes. Other sources of finance for conservation of properties are numerous
agencies, and nonprofits, which work for this cause.

The tourism industry is a huge source of income for heritage properties. Grade I and
grade II properties if known among local people also get regional tourists. Heritage
tourism in India is secondary to religious tourism. Owing to cultural believes majority of
population travels periodically for pilgrimage. These can be bi-monthly, monthly or
annual. Many of these pilgrimages are culturally important places and the INTACH
75

charter briefly addresses this issue. People already know about these places and would
definitely help to save them as they love these places. Here place memory and identity is
more important and can be a major cause for conservation. Tourism however helpful can
also be threat to the property. Charter acknowledges this fact and talks about taking
mitigating these impacts.

The final section of the INTACH charter mentions punitive measures, which are all in
accordance with western guidelines but does not propose way to implement these. It
suggests new regulations for architectural heritage and sites and or properties, but does
not establish collaborative measures with ASI to bring about these changes.

INTACH’s approach to educating people is precise and detailed. It provides instructions
for creating public awareness, and involving educational institutes at different levels like
schools, colleges and higher education. It also mentions education of craftspeople.
Educating craftspeople is an effort to keep the skills alive. These are the skills, which
build the heritage, and making sure they survive in this globalizing world is of utmost
importance. The final article establishes the code for professional practice. This section is
not so much related with scope of this research and hence not discussed in very detail.
This section clearly lays down the ethics a conservation architect should follow. It is
ambiguous in a sense that is does not define a conservation architect. The glossary is
missing from the charter.

76

Another aspect that is crucial for any document is definitions. It should have a section or
an appendix, which defines all the terms used in the document. There are so many
general terms, which if defined precisely can change the objective in many ways. The
charter will be much more enhanced and accurate. There will be fewer loopholes once the
terms are defined.

Economic Aspects
INTACH has been working in Jaisalmer since 1996. In 1996, a charity trust Jaisalmer in
Jeopardy (JIJ) was formed to protect the tangible and intangible heritage of the Jaisalmer
fort. It was registered in Britain, by a British citizen, Sue Carpenter. JIJ is a non-profit
working especially for the conservation of the Jaisalmer fort and livelihood of its people.
Sue is a resident of Britain and has done a lot of work for fund raising and other benefits
of the fort. The funds collected by JIJ are commissioned for specific projects. The
channeling of funds from UK to India is done through either INTACH or the Jaisalmer
Heritage Trust.
52
The streetscape project was first envisioned by Sue Carpenter. In 1999,
INTACH began its first project in collaboration with JIJ.

52
The foreign investment/ financial aid cannot be directly invested in a property in Indian Territory. It has
to be channeled through some trust registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.
77

Figure 3.1: Water on street inside the fort. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

78

JIJ selects its projects for the fort. The funds are sanctioned only for that project and a
project architect is hired. For the streetscape project, a pilot project was selected in 2000
with two major streets. The total scope of the pilot project was to rehabilitate 775 feet of
streetscape and 59 houses.
53

The streetscape project was funded from grants by the Staples Trust in Britain.
54
Staples
Trust is a British charitable trust, which provides grants for improving living conditions,
gender issues, and other social causes around the world.
55
Hence, the funding for the pilot
project came from Staples Trust through JIJ. The total cost of the project was a little less
than US$ 40,000.
56

The original project was envisioned in four phases including the pilot project. The
fieldwork for the pilot project began in 2000 and completed in February 2001.
57
Other
phases of this project were also completed successfully. So far, more than 100 houses
have been provided with sanitation facilities and facades cleaned to restore the
streetscape.
58

53
“Project Profile,” UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation, accessed July 21,
2012 , http://cms2.unescobkk.org/index.php.
54
“Projects,” Jaisalmer in Jeopardy, accessed August 18, 2012 http://www.jaisalmer-in-
jeopardy.org/projects.html.
55
More detailed information can be found at http://www.sfct.org.uk/staples.html.
56
“Project profile,” UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation, accessed July 21,
2012, http://cms2.unescobkk.org/index.php.
57
“Our achievements,” Jaisalmer in Jeopardy, accessed August 18, 2012, http://www.jaisalmer-in-
jeopardy.org/achievements.html.
58
As stated on INTACH and JIJ website. However date of completion is not known.
79

The Project
INTACH’s first involvement with Jaisalmer was in 1995, which was more about
advocacy. There is music and craft unique to the fort. INTACH was working to save the
arts. It later got involved in real conservation of the built heritage. INTACH’s various
conservation projects include restoration of Queen’s palace, king’s palace and the
streetscape project. The streetscape project was initiated to save the landscape of the fort
apart from the important structures. It was launched to restore two major streets in the
fort, Dhunda para and Kotari para.
59
This project aimed to educate the local people
about importance of their heritage and how to take care of it. It also provided basic
amenities to the residents and restored all the facades along these two streets (Figure 3.1
and 3.2). It was very successful and hence carried forward to other streets inside the fort.

Jaisalmer in Jeopardy (JIJ) was formed in 1996. JIJ is a non-profit working to save the
fort. Sue Carpenter loved the fort so much that she devoted a lot of her time for
establishing JIJ. The World Monuments Fund has also been involved since January
1997.
60
The heavy rains in 1999 caused havoc inside the fort as well as on the structure of
the fort. It was JIJ and INTACH’s joint effort that got the fort listed on the World
Monuments Fund Watch list of 100 Most Endangered Sites. This also got many foreign
financial help to carry out the conservation work of the fort. The Indian constitution does

59
“Project profile,” UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation, accessed July 21,
2012, http://cms2.unescobkk.org/index.php.
60
World Monuments Fund, “Restoration of Jaisalmer Fort, Rajasthan India. Second Technical Mission,
Assessment of Outer Fort Wall,” New York, May 2000, 6.
80

not allow foreign funds to be directly invested in any property.
61
Hence, the JIJ’s
financial aid for the pilot project came through INTACH.

Figure 3.2: Street in front of Hawa pol. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

World Monuments Fund reports proposed several measures for immediate restoration and
stabilization of the fort. The third technical mission report (prepared after the collapse)
was more detailed and suggested long-term goals for the conservation of the Jaisalmer
fort. These discovered the issue of water seepage and faulty sewage system. It suggested
a survey of the entire fort to be under taken for areas that need repair and possible places
of deterioration.
62

61
The trust should be registered under FCRA act to accept foreign grants.
62
World Monuments Fund with SWECO International, “Jaisalmer Fort, Rajasthan India, Third
Technical Mission, Identification of a Pilot Project,” New York, June 2001.
81

Technical Details
The streetscape project was carried out by INTACH and JIJ as a measure to prevent
water from seeping into the fort foundations. Recent heavy rains and modern water
supply system are bringing too much water in the fort. There were no provisions for
proper drainage in this new system and for the increased rains. Hence, this project was an
attempt to provide proper drainage and waterproofing. Another aspect of the project was
to restore the facades and educate the residents about how to care for their homes.

The streets did not have proper drains, the stones for paving were not in level and some
stone was deteriorated (Figure 3.3). The modern sewage system had iron manholes in
middle of the street, which were disturbing the visual character. In addition, there was no
proper sanitation for the residents. This project provided for individual lavatories to every
household, fixed and concealed all the sewage pipes running through the street, and
provided new pipelines where needed. All exposed pipes on the street were concealed
with platforms (Figure 3.4). The iron manhole covers were replaced with stone covers.
The complete street was provided with concrete base and all pipelines were checked to be
watertight. This was done to make sure no more water seeps into the ground. After that,
stone paving was re-laid on a concrete base. The existing open drains were cleaned and
provided with cement lining to make them waterproof. These were also covered with
matching stone pavers.

82

Figure 3.3: View of street showing exposed sewage and plumbing. Photo from www.Jaisalmer-in-
Jeopardy.org

Figure 3.4: New sewage installed as part of the streetscape project. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.
83

For repairing the building facades, previous repairs were under taken in cement. Local
people did not know the right material to use. Cement was easily available and much
easier to use. Hence, most of the repair work in stone was carried out with cement.
Secondly, craftsmen with knowledge of traditional stone construction are difficult to find.
The financial factor also comes in play. The material properties of cement and stone are
different- cement when set is much harder than stone. If used in cracks, cement
eventually widens the crack. Residents unaware of what they were doing used more
cement in widened cracks. This created a viscous cycle of damage. INTACH held
meeting with residents and educated them about the effects of cement as compared to
lime mortar. The facades were cleaned and cement was removed where possible. When
owners agreed, cement was replaced with traditional lime mortar. When it was not
feasible to reverse the process, matching color paint was employed to do the least to
maintain the visual coherence of the street.

The project with these two streets was so well worked out that now it is extended to all
major streets inside the fort (Figure 3.5 and 3.6). They are all provided with concrete base
to prevent water from going into the ground and provided amenities to the residents. As it
was planned ahead of time, was there any analysis done for the extra weight the concrete
will put on foundation. There are settlements in some parts of the fort and if all the streets
are laid with concrete, there can be some impacts.

84

Figure 3.5: View of street conserved in third phase of streetscape project. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

85

Figure 3.6: View of street conserved in third phase of streetscape project. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

86

Sociocultural Aspects
This project was a great success among the residents. It worked well for them as their
living standards improved. Their sanitation and water supply was updated and repaired.
Their houses cleaned from outside. The project provided individual lavatories, sewage
system and good water supply for 59 houses.
63
It also taught them a lot more about their
property, how to take care of it and to the least why it is so important to Indian heritage.
They learned about effects of cement on the traditional buildings. The project created
awareness about issues related to the fort, and its stability.

Figure 3.7: Before and after views of streetscape project. Photo from www.Jaisalmer-in-Jeopardy.org.
Apart from architectural, it also improved their social lives (Figure 3.7). There were
workshops for children where they were taught healthy habits for day-to-day life. Most
important was the construction of lavatories for individual houses, as most of the houses

63
“Our achievements,” Jaisalmer in Jeopardy, accessed August 18, 2012, http://www.jaisalmer-in-
jeopardy.org/achievements.html.
87

still do not have this basic facility. The installation of new watertight piping and sewage
system ensured that the streets were clean and dry.

The project employed local craftsmen. There were training sessions to teach interested
local masons for working with stone in traditional way. Thus, project trained and created
employment opportunities for the fort residents. The complete project was undertaken in
close supervision of expert professionals.

The initial project was for two streets only but it inspired people so much that it was
decided to carry out the same for all major streets of the fort. It created a lot of awareness
among the residents of the fort. The 59 houses project has now spread to residents of
more than 100 houses and is in its fourth and final phase.

Conclusion
The project not only helped in stabilizing the fort but also improved the living conditions
inside the fort. It was a joint effort by JIJ and INTACH to conserve not only the
architectural heritage but the skills and the cultural heritage as well. The residents gained
a lot from the project. The documentation work for the project was done by INTACH.
Most of the drawings are in the INTACH Documentation Center. Another set of
documentation is with JIJ. The website developed by JIJ is comprehensive and provides
easy information about the work done.
88

CHAPTER - 4: A COMPARISON OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES
ASI and INTACH

89

Introduction
The conservation practices in India are some of the oldest in the world.
64
In India, early
conservation was more of an archeological adventure. The Archeological Survey of India
celebrated its 150
th
anniversary last year. The Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural
Heritage (INTACH) was founded in 1984 but it did not have its charter until 2004. The
historical resources both agencies look after are varied and different. ASI is a government
agency, which owns and protects monuments. INTACH is an NGO, which consists of a
group of professionals who work as advisers for various projects. INTACH also does
projects on its own, but that is in rare cases and those initiatives are mostly related to
intangible heritage.

ASI was initially formulated to facilitate archeological surveys and monitor the antiques
discovered. After a century, ASI’s work is still concerned with archeology and
conservation of architectural heritage is secondary mission. INTACH was formed as a
trust to protect Indian heritage beyond simply architectural resources. INTACH works to
conserve arts and cultural heritage as well. Architectural conservation is not the sole
mission of either organization.

ASI owns the properties it monitors, while INTACH works with them for a short period.
While INTACH is paid for the work it does, ASI gets fixed funds from the government

64
The efforts made in 1817 come after the Swedish mandates of the 17th century and the French mandates
after the 1789 Revolution. Some German states such as Bavaria may also have early monument
protection. The UK legislation did not come into force until 1890s with the appointment of the first
Inspector of Ancient Monuments.
90

for the upkeep of these monuments. The mandates for ASI are still focused on the
financial returns and not on the significance of a monument. ASI’s work is tangled in
bureaucracy, and sometimes a shared responsibility is ignored as someone else’s
responsibility. INTACH’s conservation projects are taken by various chapters, which also
work as individual entities.

Philosophy
The difference between the governing documents for ASI and INTACH lies in the
resources they protect. ASI has a selected set of sites and monuments most of which have
fallen out of use. AMASR is an act, but the biggest issue for ASI is the lack of
enforcement of the AMASR act. The AMASR act is more coherent after the amendments
of 2010, but the issue of enforcement is still not addressed. The INTACH charter is a
mandate for the professionals, but it does not apply to a particular set of historical
resources. The INTACH charter is a general guideline for all the significant properties,
and is to be followed by INTACH professionals while carrying out conservation project
for ‘unprotected’ architectural heritage and sites. The charter has no enforcement powers.

The INTACH charter is supposed to be updated every five years, but a 2014-scheduled
update will be the first one in a decade. AMASR is similarly left at the mercy of
professionals and politicians for an update. The AMASR amendment of 2010 was the
first major update since 1959. There were few small changes in between, but the
91

amendment of 2010 was more meaningful in terms of reforms. Although a step in the
right direction, the 2010 changes are too recent for results to be evaluated.

AMASR
The Act of 1904 was the first preservation law and the AMASR act was developed based
upon the Act of 1904. Although the Act of 1904 stated its purpose and goals clearly, the
AMASR act suffers from an absence of clearly stated goals. Due to the lack of purpose,
AMASR and its amendments are inefficient in many ways. ASI focuses on the income
‘protected’ monuments generate from tourism. ASI’s scope of work for already identified
properties is also missing. It does not define if the conservation should be only for the
exterior, or are the interiors also significant? In addition, how will the citizens benefit
from the law? The AMASR and its subsequent amendments do not mention how
monuments will be protected, although they do mention the penalties for violating the
law. The limited enforcement authority has loopholes and making it difficult to enforce
the existing penalties.

The 2010 amendment to AMASR act created the National Monuments Authority (NMA).
NMA is responsible for regulating monuments and other historical properties of national
significance. The responsibilities of NMA are defined precisely but there are several key
omissions, such as the transfer of property and zoning amendments. The NMA is a
central authority and there are no regional chapters. Given the variety of resources, a
regional level of authority can be helpful. The regional version could have a say in the
92

city planning or zoning regulations. The NMA and ASI are given complete authority by
the constitution to regulate any construction, repair, or renovation within the protected or
prohibited area. Nothing is mentioned about demolition. Sometimes structures within the
protected area can contribute to the overall significance of a place. There is no regulation
to deny demolition of such properties.

In the Act of 1904, there was provision for a regular survey and updating the significant
properties and sites through a gazetteer, but (after 1958) there is only a mention of
survey. The central government can ask ASI to conduct a survey, which makes a survey
optional rather than required. The lack of a survey requirement is crucial. A periodic
survey is required to designate new properties and to remove some sites from the list of
protected monuments. Not only conducting a survey is important but also keeping a
proper record is also crucial.

AMASR considers all properties to be owned by the government. There is no mention
about individually owned properties. There are monuments with historic significance
owned by trusts and sometimes individuals. A detailed description on how to treat these
properties, at what level the owner is involved, and others issues should be included.

There is not enough relationship between AMASR and planning regulations. The law
should provide for inclusion of protected areas in the master plan for cities and how do
planning laws relate to any site. Although there are only a few ‘protected’ properties,
93

which are occupied, many people live in the protected areas, which come under planning
zones. A clear mention about how AMASR stands in relation to planning by-laws is
required. Heritage properties can only benefit from a clear explanation of how AMASR
act interacts with the planning policies.

Interiors are not considered at any point. If properties are not in use, maintaining interiors
is a much bigger issue. There are so many resources, which have magnificent interiors,
but only exteriors are protected. The complete integrity of a place or monument depends
on how one experiences it. Without protecting the interiors, only external visual identity
is saved. AMASR should define all possible extents of a property, such as setting,
exteriors and interior. Moreover, directions on how to protect them are useful as well.

Technological advances require special attention. The 1959 amendment to AMASR
addressed proper use of filming, photography, and other equipment in and around the
monuments. It was more than five decades ago and the technology changes every year.
Today things are developing so fast that a precise mention according to the recent time is
required, for example use of flash photography, wireless devices etc. In addition, there
are monuments that are the tallest in the town/city. Towers, palaces, and watch towers
can provide a good spot for telecommunication towers and smaller wireless antennae.
There should be regulations regarding this technical equipment relating to the protected
sites.

94

There are no economic incentives provided in the AMASR act. The monument itself is
owned by the government but there are people living in protected areas. Providing
economic incentives such as tax rebates can help in enforcement. People will support the
work done by ASI if proper incentives are provided. Although AMASR applies only to
protected properties, making some provisions for the unprotected properties might also be
helpful. Most of the unprotected sites are privately owned. If economic incentives are
provided for these properties, it can motivate owners to take good care and help in
upkeep of the properties. There is no provision to educate local people or to involve
regional educational institutes such as schools and colleges. The circles for various
regions should have region specific programs in this regard.

The AMASR amendment of 2010 raised the penalties to 200,000 rupees but it is still
small compared to profits earned through commercialization of private properties. Most
of the properties are turned into hotels and shops. Penalties should be defined to protect
the monuments, to make people follow the law. To make this happen there can be a
penalty for violation as well as a provision for the offender to undo whatever illegal work
is carried out. To restore the property at the offender’s expense can be a good way to
enforce the law. The political system sometimes makes it difficult to enforce the law. ASI
has the right to purchase the land on which a protected monument sits, if someone
violates the law.

95

The amendment of 2010 requires decisions and notices to be published online. The
majority of the population does not have access to internet. The computer literacy rate in
India is still low. The remaining population that has access to internet does not check
these websites regularly. The notices should be published in a place where everyone can
read them. The people should have easy access to information and rules published. Local
people can help monitor the monuments. They interact with the surrounding on a daily
basis. Public notices seeking comment on a project can be published near the monument,
where locals can read it and give the required contribution in the decision making
process.

Another pressing issue is that of work force. ASI has so many resources to care for, and
very few are widely recognized. There are not enough people employed by ASI to look
after the monuments and enforce the rules. The town I grew up in has three protected
archeological sites under ASI and the locals are unaware of these properties. These
archeological sites are close to religious places, which many people visit every day to
perform rituals. Local people do not know about them. Educating local people about
their heritage can help preserve and protect some of the properties. There are no plans for
involving schoolchildren, students at college level, or local residents. ASI has no way to
engage public and involve people for this cause.

The request for a construction permit within the protected area is made to the ASI
Director General, but it is the NMA, which prepares an impact report and provides
96

recommendations to ASI. Once the permission for construction is granted, the NMA can
withdraw the permission and stop all construction activity if it is required to do so. These
are extensive powers invested with NMA and the major issue now is how NMA
implements them.

The amendment and validation of 2010 has made many improvements and made the act
more stringent. Nevertheless, a lot more needs to be focused on practical issues facing
ASI. Maybe archeological sites and architectural heritage properties can be differentiated
for various levels of protection, or different laws for different properties. In the case of
Jaisalmer, the fort has international attention and care, and still there is a lot of
unauthorized construction. ASI along with the local governing authorities can reverse
some of it but the legal processes makes it complicated. To demolish illegal construction,
first a notice to the owner is issued. ASI officials have been trying for years but are
unable to issue notices because there is no owner. The owners for these unauthorized
constructions do not exist in papers. These are hotels and other commercial ventures,
which are making profit from tourism, and ASI officials are unable to serve notices.

INTACH Charter for the Protection Of Unprotected Architectural Heritage And
Sites

INTACH charter was adapted as a common guideline for all the professionals. It not only
categorized the architectural heritage but also provided guidelines for different
categories. The charter divides the administration in various chapters, which are smaller
administrative divisions at regional level. The charter mentions the need for local
97

chapters but do not define their geographic area of contact. Currently one local chapter
serves a small area and another is responsible for a much bigger region. A definite scope
of work for the local chapters would help increase the efficiency. INTACH is a trust and
can receive donations to carry out projects at regional and national level. The charter does
not mention how the funds should be used. There can be examples that divide the
received funds in percentile for any given project.

The charter fails to mention vernacular settlements. It says, “The tangible heritage
includes historic buildings of all periods, their setting in the historic precincts of cities
and their relationship to natural environments.” The suggested language will replace
“historic buildings” with “buildings or group of buildings” to address the settlements.

The charter mentions creating a National Register of Historic Properties. This register
when created will be a comprehensive document providing a list of historic architectural
resources. This is a good idea to begin with but only listing the properties is not enough.
65

Further question arises that what will be the legal impacts of the register? Will it be
considered before demolition of a property? How does it influence the development
process? Since the program has already made a provision of listing and categorizing the
properties, it should be much simpler to designate them.

65
The current status of INTACH’s National register of historic properties is not known. Whether this will
be implemented or not, it still remains a question.
98

INTACH is not a government body it cannot guarantee financial benefits related to tax
rebates and others of the kind but there has to be some incentive for the people to adopt
this register. If INTACH can develop a program to designate them, the designation itself
can be a brand name. For example, LEED is a rating system for designation of buildings
that are energy efficient; similarly, INTACH’s designation can be for the resources,
which are historically important. This can be a source of revenue for the organization as
well as a way to propagate conservation.
66
If this designation is well crafted it can
definitely become an important aspect of the decision to save or demolish a building. The
same idea can be applied to homeowners. The sole purpose of designation is to make
heritage properties important to people. Creating a brand name would possibly make a
difference for local people and owners. Another objective would be to have this system
for unprotected properties only.

Designations always come after survey. However, there is not yet a comprehensive list of
resources. INTACH has categorized architectural heritage, but there is no list of
properties according to this categorization. There are other issues, which come with
designation. The guidelines regulating designation should be crafted very carefully as the
balance between conservation and financial aspect is very crucial.

Another issue, which is missing from the charter, is owner consent. The charter does not
require the owner of a property to agree to designation. Most of the properties are owned

66
Since INTACH is an NGO, only chapters can earn profits through different initiatives.
99

privately and getting consent of the owner to list a property as grade I, II, or III should
have some importance. Listing will mean having all details about the property and owner
should be made aware about this. If the register goes online, anyone will have access to
this information. This will be crucial in the case of residential properties. The charter
requires a property proforma, a detailed document describing all aspects about the
property. Any possible threats to the property should also be included in this document.

The listing and proforma details fail to address any issue regarding the protection of the
interior of heritage properties. When adaptively reusing unprotected properties, some of
the interior spaces may still be worthy of protecting.

Both documents treat resources differently. The AMASR act does not define
significance. The variety of properties it takes care of is so large that the current
classification is only for of different kinds of property.
67
All properties are of national
importance but they do not have similar significance as a resource. INTACH defines the
categories for properties but there are discrepancies as well. INTACH allows changes for
property, which are less significant, and accepts alterations. ASI cannot afford to accept
changes given the set of properties it works with are of national importance.

67
Such as archeological, architectural and so on.
100

Projects
The projects both agencies carry out also differ. ASI works on many sites at any given
time. Various circles are responsible for carrying out these projects. Some of these sites
are still functional and used by the people and the heavy wear and tear from human
activities keeps ASI busy. Most of them are religious places and experience a heavy
number of visitors who come for religious purposes. These cases are very different.
Maintenance is much more complex in such cases, but people generally follow all the
rules in a religious place. There are a lot of donations and individual efforts to conserve a
place with religious importance.

The projects INTACH carries out are mostly as an adviser. INTACH chapters work as
consultants and carry out many conservation projects. The NGO does not own a property;
it identifies an endangered resource and work towards saving it. It involves fund raising,
educating local residents about their heritage and bringing attention where required. The
work differs from chapter to chapter. The success of projects in various regions depends
on the group of professionals.

In states with better living conditions, the unprotected properties are given required
attention. For states with lower standards of living and social issues, it becomes difficult
to carry out architectural conservation as the first priority. In addition, the cultural issues
play a major role in how people treat unprotected properties. The good part about
101

INTACH is that it always tries to involve local people. It works to solve their problems
and educate them.

The skill set available for every project is different in both the agencies. The local chapter
or circles have their own resources, which are further helped by the central governing
agency. In case of ASI, since it is a government agency, the circles are provided not only
with annual finances but also with required professionals. However, the overall number
of professionals employed by ASI is not enough. Given the fact that there is repair and
construction work carried out at most of the sites every year, a more comprehensive plan
is required. INTACH is a different story altogether. Since the properties are not protected
by any law, the most important task for INTACH is to educate and convince the people to
protect their heritage.

The educated sections of society who can appreciate the importance of heritage do not
have a close contact with the resource. A large percentage of people who live in
vernacular houses, or interact with heritage resources on a daily basis, do not like it. They
desire for better living conditions and modern amenities, which are hard to accommodate
in historic properties.

Technical Details
The AMASR act and Marshal’s Guide require least use of new materials and
technologies on the resources, which are of national and international significance. As
102

previously mentioned the biggest issue with ASI is of enforcement. ASI cannot
implement that the work will be carried out as mentioned in the mandates. Various circles
carry out projects according to their ability and skill set available.

In case of the Jaisalmer fort wall, the ASI Jaipur circle has been repairing collapsed
sections of wall since 1979. Many of these repairs were carried out with cement mortar
and new stone, before WMF’s involvement (Figure 4.1 and 4.2). There were very few
instances where ASI’s regional circle salvaged original stone. Jaisalmer sandstone, which
was originally used in the wall, is no longer available. The quarry has been exhausted and
new stone is brought in from other nearby locations. Recent work is more sensitive in this
respect and now the priority is to salvage as much original material as possible.

For several years, repair work was carried out without trying to fix the cause of bulging.
After other agencies got involved, a much more planned approach was followed. With
help from the WMF and reports prepared through extensive documentation, efforts are
being made to address the cause of the damage and to repair the effected sections. The
underlying issues with the overall stability of the fort such as water damage, bulging,
structural failure, and unstable grounds are now being resolved.

Both Jaisalmer municipality and INTACH are repaving the streets. INTACH’s project
with Jaisalmer in Jeopardy was a complete approach not just repaving. The streetscape
project removed all cement repairs wherever possible. There are additions on street like
103

toilets and other small changes but these changes improve the quality of life inside the
fort as well as provide remedy for the sewage problems.

Financial Details
In conservation projects often, finance is the most important issue. It concerns not only
the sources of finance for the project but also the return on the property. There are no
financial incentives provided by the government to encourage conservation. ASI owns
most of the resources and generates income by means of tickets and other tourist related
activities. Profit related with new construction is much larger than with old properties.
Hence, unprotected properties face a greater threat of demolition.

In Jaisalmer fort, most of the properties are now converted or extended into hotels for
tourists. Typically, these property owners are the ones making alterations and doing
construction without prior permission from the collector or ASI. In addition, there are
issues in reversing these changes.

Other important initiative by ASI was the formation of National Culture Fund. NCF
allowed interested individuals and organizations to donate money for conservation of
architectural heritage of India. This also allows the donor to select a project and the
professional to carry out the desired project.
68

68
“Indian National Culture Fund,” Coalition for Cultural Diversity, accessed Oct. 24, 2012,
http://www.cdc-ccd.org/India-National-Culture-Fund.
104

Figure 4.1: Work carried out at pitching by ASI in cement mortar. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

Figure 4.2: Work carried out by ASI in cement mortar at toe wall. Photo by Bombay Collaborative.

105

The source of finance is an important factor in deciding the success of conservation
projects. For example in Jaisalmer, the work done by ASI is funded by government and
government officials are looking after the work done. The source, which is funding the
project, is also carrying it out and monitoring it. For INTACH’s streetscape project,
Jaisalmer in Jeopardy is funding the project and keeping track of the quality of the work
done. ASI being a government agency also struggles with corruption; a lot of money
meant for projects is lost in administrative system. Since the World Monuments Fund and
NCF involvement in 2003, some changes have been made. With WMF and the NCF
involved in the project’s financial administration, ASI is not the only agency responsible
for the fort wall project.

ASI has a fixed source of income for carrying out projects. INTACH does not. This
difference also causes the different ways in which they carry out any projects.

Sociocultural Aspects
Vernacular architecture was maintained by the life style and various practices involved.
Some routines or rituals helped maintain these structures in very good condition over the
centuries. These traditional cultural practices diminished or stopped totally, as life style
changed. The intangible heritage, which helped architectural heritage to survive, is
diminished. These practices were the vernacular ways for conservation. With the western
practices being followed, these took a setback. Western conservation practices were not
meant for vernacular structures nor did they consider the Indian climate. The original
106

practices were region and architecture specific. The right balance of both western and
Indian practices will be a better solution.

Due to severe changes in climate and life style, there is irreversible damage to the
structures. Adding to it, repair patterns with modern materials caused further damage.
The traditional building practices involved use of stone and lime mortar or local material
for construction as well as repair. This helped the structures. Efforts are now being made
to bring these practices back with the education of locals.

The new construction done in Jaisalmer city is a mix of traditional and modern building
practices. The stone used is not the same but still similar in qualities. However, the
construction techniques of stone masonry are still alive. It has diminished to certain
extent but there are still few people left.

Many efforts depend on the ownership of the property. Most of the unprotected resources
are privately owned. The residences are historic examples of the vernacular architecture
and social life of that time. These face the most danger as people update to newer
amenities of comfort and convenience. In remote areas where neither INTACH nor ASI
has a proper reach, the owner of the house decides the fate. In addition, it only requires
one person to set a trend. The contractors play an equal role.

107

Other properties with much more significance are places of worship. India is a
conservative country and people strongly believe in their religion. These strong beliefs
not only save old structures but also keep the traditional practices alive. There are so
many temples built every year using traditional carving and materials. The mosques and
churches are all in good condition. These places are used on a regular basis and people
take care of them. They not only get financial support but also a very good care. There is
no graffiti or billboards and they are regularly maintained.

In Jaisalmer there are also Jain temples built by merchants. The temples are in great
condition. The community uses them for daily rituals and does the upkeep. There were
issues with excessive water in temples as well, but they were repaired regularly and now
the structures are surviving nicely. Temples receive huge donations for not only repair
and upkeep, but there are numerous new temples being built around the town. Jaisalmer
is known for Jain temples and the new ones are built in the stone with equally good
carving and details, as they were 800 years ago. These temples control tourists as well. At
some places there is an admission fee, at others camera and flash photography is not
allowed. The temple committee takes all measures to enforce these rules. The
enforcement is driven by devotion and nothing else. It is not surprising that there is no
mention of temples in numerous reports prepared on Jaisalmer. They are mentioned as a
part of heritage but they do not require conservation. They are owned by the community
and the community looks after them. (Figure 4.3) The temples are regularly repaired and
are now in good condition.
108

Figure 4.3: Recently built Jain temple, Amar Sagar, Jaisalmer. Photo by author.
109

The most important aspect is to keep a resource functional. There are examples of
resources which are still being used and doing great. ASI has several religious properties,
which are currently used. The continuous usage is important because it not only helps
maintain the property but any signs of damage are spotted as and when they occur. The
community, which uses them, will help and provide support not only financially but also
other ways to conserve it. Halebeed temple in Hassan district of Karnataka is an example.
This temple complex is also an ASI protected monument but it is also used for
worshiping. There are signs of wear and tear and of improper repair. There is white
cement, plaster of paris and stone blocks where the carving is worn out, but the overall
condition of the temple is good. (Figure 4.4)

Figure 4.4: Exterior view of temple in Halebeed, Hassan district of Karnataka. Notice the repairs done on
this exterior façade. The blank stone slabs are replacement for fallen off pieces. It is okay in some way, not
to try duplicate things when there is not same skill available. Photo by author.

110

A more recent example is of people asking permission to use a group of the mosques for
prayers. These are protected under AMASR and ASI is deciding if people should be
allowed to enter the property. This is another issue that sets ASI and INTACH apart.
INTACH tries to involve people as much as possible. It teaches them how to treat a
property and encourages them to conserve it. ASI on the other hand does not collaborate
with common people at large. Officials decide what needs to be done and the project is
carried out.

Conclusion
It was very interesting and informing to know so many things about India. Sometimes
being away makes one able to see a broader picture. This research began with little
knowledge about the varied heritage of India. The curiosity to discover how the vast
range of monuments and cultural resources are protected and preserved was the driving
force. So many professional have contributed to this research. Their personal views have
helped develop a theory about what a professional thinks and how is it different from
what a common person think.

There are sincere efforts from ASI and INTACH to preserve the monument. However,
the people still are skeptical of the work done. The media is not supportive at all. Media
plays the most important part in communicating what is happening in different parts of
the country, more than often these are inaccurate and misleading. There was an article
saying the Jaisalmer fort needs to be evacuated.
69
This research studies all the aspects of

69
Vimal Bhatia, “Sonar Fort crumbling as ASI slumbers,” Times of India, January 16, 2010.
111

the fort; nowhere had it come to a situation where such drastic measures were required.
The social media was informative and more accurate as compared to professional media.

Both ASI and INTACH complement each other’s work. An agency like ASI is required
to look after the numerous monuments but there also is a need to conserve the cultural
heritage of art and regional life.

Another aspect is of perspective. What people think of conservation? The practice in
India is still concerned with individual buildings and monuments, trying to save them as
they were centuries ago. Best way to conserve is to keep it functional through community
awareness and involvement. There is no point in keeping a structure same as it was
centuries ago IF some minute changes can keep it functional, that way it will live for
longer time such as Jaisalmer fort.

112

CONCLUSION

113

Conservation practices in India vary from site to site and person to person. By comparing
Conservation, professionals disagree about the efforts of both ASI and INTACH. One
professional said, “No one loves the buildings or resources; everyone is busy working for
their own interests.” This may not be completely true, but there is corruption and politics
involved in the practice.

ASI is doing a great job with limited skills and numerous properties. Creating the NMA
and the amendment of 2010 is a major improvement for the current practice. The Act of
1904 was very comprehensive and complete for the purpose, but the later editions lacked
that clarity. The AMASR amendment of 2010 caters to the needs of an independent India.

ASI also needs to update the public communication and social media. The website is very
informative but not comprehensive as required by the AMASR act. Other conservation
agencies use social media as a tool for raising awareness. ASI has no other way for public
communication; the information provided about monuments on website is incomplete and
outdated. It only provides limited information about the ‘protected’ heritage properties. In
addition, the archeological and architectural resources are listed together. The most
important issue is that there has not been an updated survey of the properties with ASI for
a long time.

There are thirty or more World Heritage Sites in India, of which eighteen are protected by
ASI. World Heritage Site designation brings in other complexities, which are not
114

mentioned in AMASR. ASI is also working internationally. It is helping countries like
Vietnam and Cambodia in their efforts to conserve the architectural heritage of their
country. This is a political issue outside the scope of this research. ASI does not have
enough resources to guard the protected monuments in India. How is it justified to divert
already diminished resources?

It was very interesting to read the INTACH charter for unprotected architectural heritage
and sites. It adapts to the international standards and is flexible enough to accommodate
the regional needs. INTACH is set to update the charter in two years; the changes are
much awaited as now the government also acknowledges the work done by INTACH in
the field of conservation. The updated charter will set new directions not only for
INTACH professionals but also for overall conservation efforts in the country.

INTACH has a Facebook profile, which is regularly updated. The INTACH Delhi chapter
is doing a lot of work in communicating the cause through social media. A few other
chapters also have Facebook accounts but those are not very active. The INTACH
website is not comprehensive enough. INTACH leaves the responsibility with individual
chapters to make and update their webpages but all chapters do not have the same
technical resources.

Globally, there are various innovative conservation efforts, which can serve as examples
for documenting resources in India. Making a comprehensive list of the heritage
115

properties is an issue with both ASI and INTACH. Wikipedia’s ‘Wiki Loves Monuments’
is an effort to document historic properties across the world through pictures taken by
local people. People take pictures of what they feel is important to their cultural heritage.
There are a few awards for the best pictures and best resource. This is a unique way to
have an updated database on a regular basis. It is not required to record everything
individually. Moreover, this documentation is done by the people of the properties they
care for. People decide what is important.

For the year 2012, 16,000 pictures of Indian heritage resources were submitted to Wiki
Loves Monuments.
70
How much easier will it be to have a survey done with common
people contributing images of their local resources? If INTACH can create a database of
these pictures, over the years these will serve as a visual documentation of the properties.

INTACH and ASI both can employ students to carry out survey projects. There are more
than 100 architectural colleges in India. Even if few students are hired for summer or a
small period to conduct a survey and create a database, it can make a significant impact.
It will be a slow process but easy enough for the students to perform. Moreover, if
outsourced to every chapter, student interns could create a regional database.

The interaction between agencies and educational institutions is very rare. There is
potential in terms of available work force with students, which goes untapped. There are

70
“Wiki Loves Monuments,” Wikipedia, accessed Oct. 14, 2012, http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.
116

currently annual competitions for college students, which require extensive
documentation. These are conducted by the National Association for Students of
Architecture.
71
The twenty winning entries from every year are stored as a record. This
competition requires new property to be documented every time, creating a
comprehensive database of available properties. Hence documenting does not depend on
survey alone. There are alternate ways to have a list and documentation of heritage
properties. Existing documentation records such as those mentioned above can be utilized
to start a survey.

Technical advances such as lasers, 3-D scanning, and non-destructive evaluation are not
very common in India. During this research, advanced technologies were not found with
any agency. Conservation agencies could benefit from technological updates.

Religion and politics have a very strong influence and it is difficult to enforce any law.
India has a rich heritage but it is not looked after very well. Privately owned property is
in better condition. There are examples where proper planning have helped maintained
some resources and sad instances where one decision has caused a lot of harm. No one
agency can be held responsible for the current condition of properties, but the sheer
number of monuments and unprotected resources make every conservation effort
minuscule.

71
The author has personally participated in these competitions. More information can be found at
http://nasaindia.info.
117

Of all the success stories about conserving architectural heritage, the most important
common denominator is the local people. Resources, which are kept functional, are in
better condition. People should be able to use the property rather than just visit it. Some
common ways to conserve any given resource would involve a group of local people who
care for it. If there is no such group, one can be created with some local support. Another
way would be to find a religious affiliation. There are trusts run by religious entities,
which can adopt a resource. These groups take full responsibility in such cases. However,
the group should be educated about how to conserve a given property. The agencies
should find ways to keep heritage properties functional and convince local people to
share responsibility.

Several questions arose in the course of research that were beyond the scope of this thesis
but may provide topics for future study. Does India need a separate law for archeology
and architectural conservation? Will having separate mandates provide a wider, better
scope of work for the professionals? Should there be some legal protection provided to
resources other than the 3700 monuments protected by ASI? Should ASI be left with
administration only and outsource the enforcement to different agencies? Alternatively,
more agencies like the NMA are required to cater to the conservation needs of India. Will
educating people about their resources and providing them with technical skills be
enough to save the heritage?

118

The individual efforts made by ASI and INTACH are appreciable but not enough. There
needs to be a government agency dedicated solely to conservation. ASI by itself has
many other tasks to perform which are also important. The formation of National
Monument Authority is a good beginning but more efforts like this are required. ASI and
INTACH together take care of ‘protected’ and ‘unprotected’ heritage properties; one
achieves what the other cannot. INTACH has ideas but does not have the legal authority
to enforce. ASI has the legal authority but cannot take care of all the resources. ASI,
INTACH, or other agencies cannot do this all by themselves. A bigger responsibility lays
with the people who interact with properties on a daily basis.
119

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baig, Amita and Rahul Mehrotra ed. Thinking Conservation: Contemporary Perspectives
for India. Jasubhai Media.

Bharne, Vinayak (Director of Design, Moule & Polyzoides Architects & Urbanists) in
discussion with the author, August, 2011.

Bhatia, Vimal. "Repair work at Sonar Fort suspended due to lack of funds." Times of
India, May 13, 2012. Accessed July 18, 2012.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Jaisalmer-Fort.
Bhatia, Vimal. "Govt need to swiftly intervene to save Sonar Fort." Times of India, Jan.
17, 2012. Accessed July 18, 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Jaisalmer-
Fort.
Bhatia, Vimal. "Concerns Over Safety Of Sonar Kella." Times of India, Jul 10, 2011.
Accessed July 18, 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Jaisalmer-Fort.
Bhatia, Vimal. "Sonar Fort crumbles as ASI slumbers." Times of India, Jan 16, 2012.
Accessed July 18, 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Jaisalmer-Fort.
Bombay Collaborative Urban Design & Conservation Pvt. Ltd., “Stabilization and
Conservation of Walls, Bastions and Slopes of Jaisalmer Fort,” June 2008.

Chhatre, Ashwini. Democracy on the commons: Political competition and local
cooperation for natural resource management in India. Duke: Duke University, 2007.

Colin, Amery, Brian Curran, and World Monuments Watch (Program). Vanishing
histories: 100 endangered sites from the world monuments watch. New York: Abrams in
association with the World Monuments Fund, 2001.

Fidler John A. (President, John Fidler Preservation Technology Inc.) email to the author,
January-July, 2011.

Gupta, Divay ((Architectural Heritage Division, INTACH), email to the author,
December, 2011.

Herdeg, Klaus. Formal Structures in Indian Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1990.

INTACH, “Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in
India,” (adopted Nov. 2004).

120

"INTACH files report and lobbies for quake-hit private heritage buildings." The Times of
India (1861-current), 2001. Accessed June 18, 2011.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/609438479.

"INTACH to be reorganized." The Times of India (1861-current); 1991. Accessed June
18, 2011. http://search.proquest.com/docview/741850236.

Jaisalmer fort, Rajasthan India: third technical mission, identification of a pilot project -
World Monuments Fund with Sweco International, New York 2001.
Kawathekar, Vishakha, Paromita De Sarkar, and Gurmeet S. Rai. "The case of the
INTACH charter." Context: Built, Living, and Natural 2 (1) (Apr): 83, 83-88.,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/55499823.
Lelyveld, Joseph. "India is taming border badlands: Vast desert region next to Pakistan is
revitalized." New York Times (1857-Current file) 1968. Accessed July 5, 2011.
Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, and Kalikinkar Datta. An
advanced History of India 3
rd
ed. New York: London: Macmillan, 1967.

Manchanda, Bindu (Director, Architectural Heritage Division, INTACH) email to the
author, July 2012.

Mani, Dr. B. R. (Additional Director General, Archeological Survey of India), in
discussion with the author, December 16, 2011.

Martinelli, Antonio and George Michell. Princely Rajasthan: Rajput palaces and
mansions. New York: Vendome Press, 2004.

Menon, A.G. Krishna. Case study on the effects of tourism on culture and environment:
India Jaisalmer, Khajuraho and Goa. UNSECO Principal Regional Office for Asia And
The Pacific, Bangkok, 1993.

Michael Kenney, Globe Staff. "India 800 Years Have Failed To Diminish The Magic Of
Jaisalmer: Third Edition.” Boston Globe (Pre-1997 Fulltext), 1988.

Michell, George and Philip Davies. The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India. vol.
1&2. Viking, 1989.
Mohammed Iqbal. “India: Another Danger to Golden Fort residents.” The Hindu, 2001.
"Monument Fund Lists Endangered Sites: Final edition." Seattle Times, 1999.
121

O’Brien, Anthony Gordon. The Ancient Chronology of Thar: the Bháátika, Laukika and
Sindh eras. New York: Oxford University Press, Delhi 1996.
Piplani Navin, (Centre for Conservation Studies, University of York, UK), in discussion
with the author, August 2011- June 2012.

Priya, Laksmi (National Culture Fund, Delhi), in discussion with the author, December
16, 2011.

Ribeiro, E. F. N. “The Existing and Emerging Framework for Heritage Conservation in
India: The Legal, Managerial And Training Aspects.” Third World Planning Review 12
(o.4) (Nov): 338,338-343.

Restoration of Jaisalmer fort, Rajasthan, India: WMF second technical mission,
assessment of outer fort wall, World monuments Fund, New York, 2000.

Sharma, L.P. Bharat ka Itihas: Prarambh se 1526 A.D. Agra: Laxmi Narayan Agrawal
Pustak Prakashak, 2004.
Singh, Rahul. "Desert outpost retains India’s artistic glory: The temples and intricate
stone carvings of Jaisalmer.” New York Times (1857-Current file) 1983. Accessed July 5,
2011. http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/304862332.
Sue Carpenter. Holding the fort: 1DD edition. The Times 2000

Thakur, Nalini (School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi), in discussion with the
author, December 16, 2011.

Tillotson, G. H. R. The Rajput Palaces: The Development of an Architectural Style 1450-
1750. Yale university press, 1987.

Tillotson, G. H. R. ed. Stones in The Sand: The Architecture of Rajasthan. Mumbai:
Marg Publications, 2001.

Verma, Richi. “INTACH Identifies 13 Topologies For Heritage Bylaws.” Times of India,
Sept. 25, 2012. Accessed Sept. 27, 2012.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Jaisalmer-Fort.

Vijaya (Architectural Heritage Division, INTACH), in discussion with the author,
December 16, 2011.

Weber, Mark (Field Projects Director, World Monuments Fund), in discussion with the
author, December 2011-August 2012.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines the practical issues involved in conservation of architectural heritage in India. To explore the role of ASI and INTACH, this dissertation analyzes their mandates/legal frameworks, which defines the scope of work for respective agencies. The Jaisalmer Fort conservation project is examined to research the practical, social, and legal issues involved in the practice. The work done by both agencies is analyzed. ASI and INTACH are both facing issues in enforcement and hence trying to update their administrative system. Both these agencies are major entities in their respective fields (government and non-government) working nationwide to conserve heritage resources. This dissertation attempts to find out where does conservation practice presently stand and what future opportunities are possible with recent major changes in their working methodology.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaborative conservation: how the heritage and environmental movements can and should unite for progress

PDF

A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

The vanishing Wadas Of Pune, India

PDF

Reconstruction right now: conserving vernacular heritage in Beaufort, South Carolina as an act of reconstructing preservation practice

PDF

Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

PDF

Heritage in practice: a study of two urban rivers

PDF

Este lugar si importa: heritage conservation in unincorporated east Los Angeles

PDF

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

PDF

Preserving street names in Los Angeles, California

PDF

The ambivalence of conserving Busan’s colonial heritage

PDF

Empowering communities through historic rehabilitation: creating a maintenance plan for public housing developments in Los Angeles

PDF

Managing change on Newbury Street: a case study analysis

PDF

Lessons from Little Saigon: heritage conservation and ethnic enclaves in Orange County

PDF

Greening historic districts with solar roofs: an exploration of Western Heights in Los Angeles

PDF

The early career of architect Robert Henry Ainsworth: from draftsman to practitioner

PDF

Cuerda seca ceramic tiles: explorations of resist formulas in various firing ranges

PDF

Keeping a historic collegiate stadium viable: best practices for the historic Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum rehabilitation

PDF

Defining the City of Gardens: the conservation of Pasadena's bungalow courts

PDF

Maintaining historic integrity and solving a rehabilitation dilemma: the history of hollow clay tile and an argument for its preservation

Asset Metadata

Creator Jain, Neha (author)

Core Title Conservation practices in India -- a case study of Jaisalmer Fort

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Historic Preservation

Degree Program Historic Preservation

Publication Date 11/21/2012

Defense Date 11/01/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag ASI,conservation,India,INTACH,Jaisalmer,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Piplani, Navin (committee member), Weber, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email nehajain.usc@gmail.com,nehajain@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-113119

Unique identifier UC11290393

Identifier usctheses-c3-113119 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JainNeha-1324.pdf

Dmrecord 113119

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Jain, Neha

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA